The Home-Field Advantage Theory of Government Ethics
One way of describing government ethics is that it involves the use and
abuse of the power that goes with government officials' positions. Not
all such abuses are covered by ethics laws, of course. This blog post looks at an
instance of abuse that is not covered. It involves a state
legislature and, especially, one state representative, in a state where local ethics is handled at the state level.<br>
<br>
Much of the background story has appeared in various City Ethics blog
posts. A couple of Louisiana legislators <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/450">successfully limited the
state ethics board's jurisdiction</a> over them, on the basis of
legislative immunity (by means of a court decision). But the board
still held jurisdiction over legislators' non-legislative activities.<br>
<br>
Then the legislature took the ethics board's enforcement authority away
from it, handing it to over to <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/firewalls-and-indirect-financial-inte…
of administrative judges</a>. And according to <a href="http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20091102/NEWS01/91102019/La.-Ethics-…
article in <i>The Town Talk</i></a>, the ethics board members quit. It took
seven months to replace them.<br>
<br>
At the same time, the legislature <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/452">changed the standard of
evidence</a> in ethics cases from “reliable and substantial” to “clear
and convincing,” over the protests of the ethics board. And according
to the <a href="http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20091102/NEWS01/91102019/La.-Ethics-…
Talk</i> article</a>, a state legislator named Rick Gallot wrote an
amendment to the ethics law lowering from two years to one year the
time the ethics board has to issue charges after a complaint is filed
or the
board votes to consider the matter if there is no sworn complaint.<br>
<br>
This all happened in 2008. Fast forward to 2009. According to <a href="http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/64655907.html">an article in
the Baton Rouge <i>Advocate</i></a>, in September, a panel of three
administrative law judges threw out seven conflict of interest charges
against Rep. Gallot because too much time had elapsed since the charges
were filed. One of the three judges said that this interpretation of
the law "leads to absurd consequences." And the ethics board has
appealed the decision to a regular court, although it probably has no
standing to do so.<br>
<br>
Why should the ethics board complain if it was so slow in acting? Because it lacked a
quorum for about seven months of the year that was left them after Rep.
Gallot pushed through the new rule. And yet Rep. Gallot, chair of the
House and Governmental Affairs Committee and the governor's floor
leader on the ethics reforms, says, “I will do everything I have to do
to defend myself.”<br>
<br>
Against what? It seems like he did a good job changing the law to make
it impossible for the ethics board to hear the case, raising the
standards of evidence, and giving the board a limited time to bring its
case before the new panel.<br>
<br>
But this is not enough for Rep. Gallot. When the panel dismissed two
cases brought by the ethics board, including <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/firewalls-and-indirect-financial-inte…
one against the sheriff</a> who brought DWI charges against people,
requiring them to buy a device that only his company sold, Gallot said,
according to <a href="http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/78388592.html">an
<i>Advocate</i> article yesterday</a>, “It certainly calls into question the
validity of some of these
charges. If they don’t have the evidence, why are they
pursuing these charges? ... I’ve heard things like without home-court,
home-field advantage the board doesn’t seem to be doing very well.”<br>
<br>
If he has so much trust in the administrative law judges, why doesn't
he let them decide his case? After all, he's the one who raised the
standard of evidence, and he's the one who, in the case of the sheriff,
limited conflicts to direct interests, so that clever officials could
turn their direct interests into indirect interests in order to get around the law.<br>
<br>
The real home-field advantage is the legislature's. While making a big
deal about ethics reform, it has done all it could to undermine the
ethics enforcement system. If Rep. Gallot cared anything about
conflicts of interest, he would have kept his mouth shut about a board
that has filed an appeal against him. But ethics is not the name of the
game. The game, as Gallot has so well described it, is, Who has
home-field advantage?<br>
<br>
The ethics board's view of the dismissals is that they show the new
system is not working well. But they're the visitor on the legislators'
turf, and they're lucky to be given a locker room, a chance to play,
and a handful of tickets for their friends.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---