Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Commission Referrals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances H.1 to change State Ethics Commission referral process
Summary
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee found H.1 favorable on March 11, advancing a strike‑all amendment that removes a mandatory consultation requirement for certain referrals from the State Ethics Commission and makes the commission’s advice confidential and nonbinding.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee voted March 11 to find H.1 favorable, advancing a strike‑all amendment that changes how the State Ethics Commission accepts and refers complaints.
The amendment keeps the commission’s authority to accept complaints and require a preliminary review by the executive director, but for referrals involving the legislative and judicial branches and attorney disciplinary matters it replaces a mandatory consultation requirement with a directive that the executive director specify how the State Code of Ethics applies to the facts and include a recommended action. For other referrals the receiving entity must still consult with the commission. The amendment also says any advice provided in consultation shall be confidential and nonbinding. The committee adjusted the bill’s effective date language to make the new provision control where it conflicts with related provisions already set to take effect Sept. 1, 2025.
Legislative counsel Mike O’Grady, who walked the committee through the amendment, summarized the change as a shift in the referral process. “In front of you, you see a strike all amendment to H 1, an act relating to accepting and referring complaints by the State Ethics Commission,” O’Grady said. He explained the amendment removes the requirement that the legislature or judiciary consult the commission in every referred matter and instead directs the executive director to specify the application of the state code and include a recommended action.
Members who opposed the change raised separation‑of‑powers and transparency concerns. A member identified in the record as an Ethics Commission participant said the season’s treatment of the bill felt different from last year and described difficulty securing a hearing: “this year I had to fight every step of the way to be heard at all.” That speaker and other committee members urged the panel and committee to consider independent constitutional analysis before removing what they described as an important consultation requirement.
Several lawmakers cited the separate House measure HR 6, which aims to increase transparency in the House Ethics Panel by allowing the panel to publish closure statements and, in limited circumstances, authorize the panel chair to speak publicly about known complaints. Supporters said the resolution and the committee’s amendment address distinct concerns: one focuses on procedural transparency inside the ethics panels, the other on the executive director’s role in referrals.
Committee discussion also referenced outside legal review. Committee members noted that Vermont Law School professor Peter Teachout was preparing a memo and expressed willingness to testify if scheduling allowed. One committee member said Teachout’s input could address perceived flaws in a memo previously submitted by Betsy Hearn.
After discussion and a minor correction to the effective date language, the committee voted to find the strike‑all amendment to H.1 favorable and to advance the bill to the Senate. The committee’s reporter on the bill was Representative Morgan.
Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a favorable finding on H.1 (strike‑all amendment) with an adjusted effective date (to take effect Sept. 1, 2025, where it controls conflicting provisions). The motion was recorded as approved.
