Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel reviews draft rule letting Ethics Panel confirm investigations while members warn on confidentiality
Summary
The House Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel discussed a proposed House resolution that would let the Ethics Panel issue brief public statements after closing cases and share limited information with the harassment and discrimination panels and law enforcement. Members raised confidentiality concerns about one provision they called "section G."
Representative Molly Burke, chair of the House Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel, opened the panel’s Feb. 14 meeting as members and staff reviewed a draft House resolution to change how the Ethics Panel may share information.
Attorney Maggie Perrin, who presented the draft, said the resolution would let the Ethics Panel provide “a brief statement of the issue in the resolution to the public” upon closing a case and, in limited circumstances, communicate with members and staff of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel and the Discrimination Prevention Panel to inform overlapping investigations. Perrin also said the change would permit communication with law enforcement when necessary.
Panel members said they supported the underlying goal of clarifying that an investigation is underway when the matter becomes public, but they repeatedly flagged a particular provision—referred to during the meeting as section G—because it would allow the Ethics Panel to issue statements that “clarify the procedural aspects of the investigation.” Several members said that language could lead to disclosures that identify or hint at the panel’s work with the Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel or the Discrimination Prevention Panel, and that even limited disclosures risked harm to impacted individuals.
“I think there are some important differences between the work that the Ethics Panel is asked to do, what our panel is asked to do, and the Discrimination Panel is asked to do,” one member said, adding that the Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel’s confidentiality protections reach into areas the others do not. Perrin responded that the draft is intended to be limited and to increase public confidence by allowing short confirmations that a matter is being addressed.
Members proposed specific limits: allowing the Ethics Panel to confirm only the existence of an investigation and that respondents are entitled to due process, and prohibiting any statement that references information the Ethics Panel received from the Sexual Harassment Prevention Panel. Several members asked attorneys to draft language that would preserve confidentiality for shared material and to remove or narrow any clause that would explain how procedures were applied in a particular instance.
Panel leadership said they would discuss the concerns with counsel and legislative leadership before returning language to the panel. No formal vote or rule change occurred at the meeting.
Panel members and staff also discussed how public statements might be handled at the speaker’s office or by centralized communications staff so Ethics Panel members are not put on the spot and to reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosures.
The panel agreed to seek more information from counsel and legislative leadership and to report back; members said they did not oppose limited confirmations in principle but wanted safeguards to prevent disclosures that could identify complainants or reveal confidential material.
