House Ethics: An Oxymoron?

Posted on 10/13/2007 by

1


Democracy Rising Pennsylvania

by , Co-founder Democracy Rising PA

In this Edition:

  • Reality Check
  • House Ethics: An Oxymoron?
  • One-Page Histories of Gut-and-Run Laws

Reality Check
826 – Days since the Pay Raise of 2005. See the ticker .
1 – Law enacted to improve government integrity. See the cartoon .
0 – “Best-in-America” laws enacted. See the campaign .

See the full October edition of “Reality Check” on the web.

House Ethics: An Oxymoron?

On Monday the 15th, House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, has promised a vote on a resolution that, he claims, will breathe new life into a House Ethics Committee (HEC) that hasn’t fogged a mirror in years. was introduced on May 7 by Reps. Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery, David Steil, R-Bucks, and 22 others. Shapiro and Steil were co-chairs of Speaker Dennis O’Brien’s, R-Phila., Commission on Legislative Reform.

Proposed Changes. The resolution would change existing House rules by:

  • Stripping the HEC of the ability to issue “advisory opinions” to all Representatives about ethical issues. Instead, the HEC could only issue confidential opinions to individual members who specifically request them.
  • Adding a requirement for House members to attend two hours of ethics training every two years.
  • Requiring the committee to publish a Members’ Handbook on Ethics.
  • Changing how the eight members of the HEC are chosen. Currently, the Speaker appoints four members from the majority party, and the minority leader appoints four members. HR 263 would allow the majority and minority leaders each to appoint two members. The chief clerk would choose two members at random from each party from House members who volunteer to serve. Each party would have two alternate committee members, one each chosen by the majority and minority leaders and one chosen by the chief clerk. (Without this change, Republican Speaker O’Brien would appoint the four Democrat members.)
  • Allowing committee members to elect the committee chair and vice chair, whom the Speaker now appoints.
  • Authorizing the HEC to recommend action against Representatives.

Questions:

  • Why are requests for advisory opinions suddenly secret? If they pertain to the public conduct of public officials, why isn’t such advice a public record for the benefit of citizens and other Representatives (and Senators, for that matter)? Does keeping lawmakers’ questions secret benefit the public or the lawmakers?
  • What penalty will there be for House members who refuse to attend ethics training?
  • Will the Members’ Handbook on Ethics be a public document? Will members be required to read it and pass a test on its contents?
  • Will the training sessions be open to citizens and the media?

Lingering Problems. HR 263 does not address many issues of openness, enforcement and independence. Legislative leaders have shown their willingness to use district offices, committee assignments, legislative staff, WAMs and other money to control rank-and-file members. Famously, then-Minority Leader DeWeese demoted 16 committee officers for their refusal to vote for the Pay Raise of 2005. Given such a history, one may wonder whether those who “volunteer” to serve on the HEC will be truly independent of leadership.

Other problems include:

  • Limiting the HEC’s purview to the notoriously weak lobbying control act, House rules and the “Legislative Code of Ethics.” (The House Chief Clerk’s Office yesterday said that the “Le gislative Code of Ethics” is not available online and referred our caller to the State Ethics Commission, which stated that no such thing exists. This may omit such ethical topics as nepotism and cronyism.)
  • Requiring the HEC to keep the results of investigations secret for seven days after the HEC notifies the affected Representative by certified mail. (This is 84 times as much notice as citizens got for the Pay Raise of 2005 and seven times as much notice as citizens got for the passage of unlimited free alcohol for slots players on the last day of lame-duck session in 2006. Of course, citizens had no real notice of these impending laws.)
  • Requiring the HEC to employ independent counsel during investigations. (This prevents the HEC from building legal expertise among its own staff and provides opportunities to reward politically connected lawyers and law firms.)
  • Allowing investigations to be conducted in secret with no schedule for their resolu tion. (This can prevent citizens from knowing until after an election whether their Representative has violated ethical standards.)

More Questions:

  • Is it reasonable to believe that the House (or Senate) can police its own ranks?
  • Should House (and Senate) ethics investigations rest with an independent agency such as the State Ethics Commission?
  • Is HR 263 the best citizens deserve or the least lawmakers think they can get away with?

One-Page Histories of Gut-and-Run Laws

In preparation for a news conference at the National Press Club tomorrow, DR has created one-page histories of three gut-and-run laws. Click here to find them, print them and distribute them.

P.O. Box 618, Carlisle, PA 17013

Posted in: Harrisburg PA, Loony Legislators, PA Constitution, PA Executive Branch, PA General Assembly, PA Government, PA Legislative Branch, Pennsylvania