North Dakota Government and Veterans Affairs committee rejects ethics overhaul, advances several bills including procurement, pensions and organizational rules

The House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday recommended against passage of House Bill 1360, a contested rewrite of procedures for the North Dakota Ethics Commission, after more than an hour of testimony and questioning from committee members.

The committee’s decision came after Chris Joseph, general counsel for the Office of the Governor, told the panel that “as written, however, House Bill 1360 is overbroad and there are unintended consequences our office believes will occur if the bill passes.” Joseph said his office’s concern centers on language that he said would permit the Ethics Commission to define and enforce its own rules without statutory guardrails and administrative oversight.

Why it matters: The bill would restructure how complaints and “enforcement actions” are defined and handled by the Ethics Commission. Supporters say the rewrite modernizes terminology and procedure; opponents, including the governor’s legal team, said it would shift powers that the governor and attorney general believe should rest with the Legislature and courts.

Committee debate and the commission’s response

Joseph argued the bill’s definitions and the new enforcement process would have the effect of allowing a constitutionally established entity to “define, execute, and interpret its own rules,” and that the Legislature should preserve checks on how sanctions and criminal penalties are imposed. He described the issue as one of statutory interpretation of Article 14 of the North Dakota Constitution and warned the committee that broad delegation of enforcement could create opportunities for misuse in future compositions of the commission.

Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, told members the commission reads Article 14 as giving it rulemaking authority and that giving the rules practical effect requires some procedure to implement and enforce those rules. “There are checks and balances on the commission,” Binstock said, noting judicial review and legislative appropriation as structural constraints. She said part of the commission’s concern is backlog and delay in the existing multi-step complaint process and that the commission seeks ways to provide informal guidance and educational resolutions to improve timeliness.

Several committee members pressed both witnesses on specific provisions. Representative Steiner moved a committee recommendation of “do not pass,” a motion the committee approved in roll call. The committee record shows the motion carried with the committee’s tally reported by roll call.

Other bills and committee action — votes at a glance

The committee took final or tentative action on a package of bills covering legislative procedure, procurement, retirement coverage, and election law. Key outcomes and context are below; counts reflect the committee roll-call votes recorded in the hearing.

- HB1505 (legislator disclosure/immunity and changes to ethics-related procedures): The committee adopted sponsor amendments and then voted to recommend "do not pass as amended." The measure drew extended debate about whether narrowly tailored immunity for the act of voting should be codified and which protections or procedural changes are appropriate. The governor’s office signaled it accepts limited immunity language but opposed other sections of the amendment package.

- HB1028 (construction procurement; CMAR/design‑selection language): The committee adopted technical amendments tightening language about how project costs and designer fees must be considered, and voted to recommend the bill as amended. Supporters said the change increases price transparency and value; opponents including several public owners and contractors testified the existing procurement weighting system serves long-term durability and public interest.

- HB1419 (public safety retirement plan — radio dispatchers): The committee voted to advance the bill, which would expand eligibility for the state public safety plan to include state radio dispatchers and permit political subdivisions to offer the public safety public-safety plan to dispatchers and emergency personnel. Fiscal notes supplied to the committee estimated a biennial state cost of about $87,000 (roughly $53,000 general fund, $33,000 other funds) and uncertain local government impacts depending on employer adoption.

- HB1274 (state correctional officers into public safety plan): The committee adopted a technical correction and then voted to recommend the bill as amended. Fiscal work in the hearing record indicated moving about 442 employees from the main plan into the state public safety plan would reduce liabilities in the main plan while increasing the public safety plan’s liabilities; actuaries estimated a contribution-rate change of 0.12 percentage points across the public safety plan to carry the change.

- HB1257 (organizational session/orientation): The committee approved an amendment that expanded committee flexibility for the organizational session and added an orientation requirement for new legislators; the amended bill also directs legislative leadership/counsel to determine certain reports and presentations. The committee recommendation as amended passed.

- Raffle and election-related measures: The committee voted not to advance a proposal that would broaden raffle authority tied to certain organizations and declined to advance a proposal changing signature-gatherer pay from hourly to per‑signature — both measures drew objections about potential unintended consequences for fundraising and for the integrity of signature collection.

What the committee did not decide

Committee members debated but did not finalize a number of details that members said would be more appropriate to resolve through stakeholder negotiation, technical drafting by legislative counsel, or (for broader structural questions) a study. Multiple members urged continued engagement among the governor’s office, the attorney general, the Ethics Commission and legislative staff to narrow disputed language on ethics and related procedure.

What’s next

Several of the bills the committee recommended will go to House floor consideration with either a committee recommendation to pass (as amended) or to not pass; several bills will move with technical amendments to be handled in the second chamber. The committee record shows multiple roll-call results and motions; committee staff will publish the official minutes and bill text, including adopted amendments and the roll-call tallies, in the formal committee report.

Votes at a glance (committee recommendations and recorded tallies)

- HB1360 — Committee recommendation: Do not pass. (Do not pass motion approved by roll call; committee tally recorded by the clerk.) - HB1505 — Committee recommendation: Do not pass as amended (amendments adopted; do‑not‑pass motion carried by roll call). - HB1028 — Committee recommendation: Due pass as amended (amendments adopted; due-pass motion carried by roll call). - HB1419 — Committee recommendation: Due pass (fiscal estimate: ~$87,000 state biennial impact; local cost depends on employer choices). - HB1274 — Committee recommendation: Due pass as amended (technical correction adopted; actuarial impacts summarized in fiscal note; employer contribution +0.12 percentage point estimated). - HB1257 — Committee recommendation: Due pass as amended (organizational-session/ orientation language amended; motion carried by roll call). - HB1276 (raffle/party fundraising expansion) — Committee recommendation: Do not pass (do‑not‑pass motion carried by roll call). - Initiative petition rule/payment change (signature‑gatherer pay) — Committee recommendation: Do not pass (do‑not‑pass motion carried by roll call).

Committee members and principal witnesses who testified

Quoted or attributed statements in this report come from the following individuals who appeared in the committee record: Chris Joseph, general counsel, Office of the Governor; Rebecca Binstock, executive director, North Dakota Ethics Commission; Chairman Schauer, chair, Government and Veterans Affairs Committee; Vice Chairman Satrim; Representatives Steiner, Karls, McLeod, Schneider, Vetter, Van Winkle and others who participated in roll-call votes and question periods.

Ending note

Committee members repeatedly described the ethics bills as legally and politically sensitive and urged further negotiations among interested executive-branch offices, legislative leadership and the Ethics Commission before any final statutory changes. Several members suggested a study or additional drafting work to produce narrower, more targeted statutory language to address procedural delays while preserving legislative oversight and judicial review.