Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission on Ethics amends administrative regulations to narrow 'subject' definition, add discretion on defective anonymous complaints
Summary
The Commission on Ethics voted unanimously to adopt two changes to its administrative regulations, reverting the definition of “subject” to mean only a public officer or public employee and changing a proposed mandatory rejection of defective anonymous complaints to a discretionary standard, the commission’s executive director said.
The Commission on Ethics voted unanimously to adopt two targeted changes to its proposed administrative regulations after a public hearing and staff presentation.
Executive Director Bill Armstrong told the commission the revisions respond to concerns raised by the Legislative Commission and clarify the agency’s administrative procedures. "For the ethics commission, all the actual ethics rules ... are set in statute," Armstrong said, explaining that the administrative code functions as a procedure manual for hearing and process timelines.
The commission approved reverting a proposed expansion of the term "subject" back to the narrower language — "public officer or public employee" — after the Legislative Commission expressed concern that defining subject more broadly could extend the commission’s jurisdiction to private individuals and businesses. Armstrong said the office sometimes receives advisory requests or complaints from people who are not public officers or employees, but staff recommended avoiding a legislative fight and leaving the statutory scope intact.
The second change addresses handling defective or anonymous complaints. The commission had proposed a rule allowing staff to reject obviously defective complaints without drafting a full jurisdictional recommendation. After discussion with the Legislative Commission and concerns about protecting whistleblowers, Armstrong proposed changing the proposed regulation language from a mandatory "shall reject" to a permissive "may reject," preserving staff discretion and allowing room for legislative changes to expand confidentiality protections in the future. Armstrong noted that accepting anonymous complaints without stronger confidentiality protections could risk a flood of non-actionable filings.
Commissioner Langton recommended one further clarification to section 6: that any court reporter used at hearings be a certified court reporter. Armstrong said adding that wording was not a substantial change requiring a new public hearing and had no objection. The commission accepted that wording.
Action: Motion by Commissioner Moran, second by Commissioner Reynolds to adopt the two regulatory modifications (reverting "subject" to public officer/public employee; making rejection of defective anonymous complaints discretionary) and to authorize the executive director to prepare the statement of principal reasons and related documents to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. The motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: Armstrong said the amended regulations will be resubmitted to the Legislative Commission for their review and hoped-for approval. He said staff will continue discussing statutory confidentiality adjustments with legislators.
Ending: The commission closed the public hearing portion with no public commenters present in person or on Zoom and moved on to the remainder of its agenda.
