More Bad Consequences of Gubernatorial Selection of EC Members in Georgia

I wrote about it in a June 2011 blog post, and then again in a June 2012 post, but it hasn't gone away. In fact, it became a big issue again this week when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution provided new evidence that things might have been far worse than was suspected.

The new evidence suggests that aides to Georgia's governor contacted a prospective ethics commission executive secretary before the position was even open, and that the governor's appointees were instrumental in having her hired at a time when the EC was considering a complaint against the governor (the EC selects its own executive secretary). The new executive secretary recommended that major charges be dropped, and arranged a settlement, with a small fine, that called the governor's violations merely "technical." Multiple staff members have said that the executive secretary removed documents from the investigation file, met with gubernatorial aides, and bragged that the governor owed her one. Staff members have filed suits galore. Things look very bad.

Bad things can happen when an appointing authority comes before an ethics commission. Any high-level official who chooses to select EC members (he could allow others to make the selection or provide him with multiples names to choose from) should state publicly that anyone he selects will have to withdraw from participation in any matter involving that official or that official's appointees. If that may mean that the ethics commission cannot handle a proceeding due to the lack of a quorum, then the official should seek to have the ethics act amended to provide an alternative, such as having another jurisdiction's EC hear the case.

But the best solution is not to have EC members selected by anyone under its jurisdiction. In fact, according to an article yesterday on the Atlanta Creative Loafing website, last year a state senator proposed to do just that. His bill would have state EC members selected by the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals. That's not the best choice (judges can be seen as partisan), but it's far better than what Georgia has now. The bill would also have given the EC financial independence:  funding would be a fixed proportion of the state's budget. Needless to say, the bill was not passed.

The governor's response to the allegations was not to consider an alternative to the gubernatorial appointment of EC members, so that the EC would not appear to be beholden to its appointing authority or possibly be involved in a cover-up like the one alleged to have occurred. No, the governor chose to attack the newspaper that published the news:

"If [the Journal-Constitution] continues that downward spiral as it relates to every issue of major importance they pretty well are going to descend to the level where they can’t even claim to be a fish wrapper.”

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---