Presiding Officers’ Advisory Committee on Legislative Ethics
June 21, 2006 meeting
DRAFT MINUTES
In attendance: Calvin MacKenzie, Edith Leary, John Rensenbrink,
Phyllis Gardiner, Mark Lawrence, Sen. Deb Plowman, Rep. John Robinson,
Roger Mallar, Jonathan Wayne, Rep. Marilyn Canavan, Kristine Ossenfort,
Michael Carpenter, Richard Thompson, and Peter Pietegoff (via phone).
Not present: Harrison Richardson, Sen. Phil Bartlett
The committee meeting began with comments from President Edmonds
and Speaker Richardson, and introductions from the committee members.
Mr. Lawrence offered copies of a Law Review Article that he
had drafted while in law school, concerning undue influence.
Mr. Wayne offered a compilation of information developed by
the Ethics Commission.
The committee began a general review of the statutes the committee
is charged with evaluating.
Mr. Wayne stated that legislative ethics falls within the Ethics
Commission’s jurisdiction, but is not a major part of
their work. When the Commission does review ethics complaints,
they have
found that existing statute can be confusing, with differing
standards, unclear procedure, etc.
Dr. MacKenzie said that it is important to ask what’s
broken about legislative ethics in Maine. He asked that Mr.
Wayne provide a summary of recent complaints and the types of
violations
the Commission has seen. He further stated that Maine has a
citizen legislature, and whenever an ethics question or problem
arises,
the laws regarding each issue can lead to confusion and lack
of clarity. He does not see a culture of corruption in Maine.
Dr. Featherman stated that Maine has high ethical standards
compared with other states. However, there can be a public
perception of legislators acting to benefit their employers and
themselves.
Mr. Lawrence stated that Maine’s ethical issues are more
subtle than those found in other states – we don’t
see the scandals and indictments seen in other states. The public
doesn't distinguish between Augusta and Washington. With respect
to legislators' interaction with executive branch agencies, it
is important to understand that Constitutional issues are involved.
There is a need to clarify to the public that the state of ethics
in Maine is generally very good.
Mr. Carpenter seconded that the general state of ethics is
good compared with other states. There are legitimate issues,
but one
of the committee’s roles should be to draw distinctions
between real issues and perceived problems. During his years
as a legislator
in both the House and Senate and as Attorney general, he rarely
saw inappropriate or unethical behavior.
Mr. Wayne asked that the committee’s review include the
issue of undue influence as a distinct issue, rather than as
part of the review of conflict of interest.
Dean Pietegoff suggested that the committee might be well-served
by drawing from other ethical standards, such as those for
the legal profession and corporate governance.
Senator Plowman suggested that if the committee recommends
expanding the ethics complaint procedure to allow complaints
from non-legislators,
and that the committee considers a “lookback period” to
allow for complaints from previous sessions. Senator Plowman also
suggested that undue influence in a substantial issue because there
is little transparency in the interactions between legislators
and the executive branch. Sen. Plowman stated that it is important
for the public to feel secure about legislators’ behavior,
but this does not appear to be a huge problem in Maine.
Mr. Wayne suggested that the committee review procedural limitations
that have drawn recent criticism, including the fact that ethics
proceedings are confidential and thus non-public, the limitation
that complaints can only deal with the current session, and
the fact that only legislators may file complaints against other
legislators.
Representative Canavan stated that many legislators want to
do the right thing, but do not understand what the limits are.
She stated that the law isn’t clear, so legislators don’t
know where to draw the line.
Ms. Leary asked that Mr. Wayne provide details of the recent
ethics complaint that was a catalyst for the formation of this
committee. She suggested that the committee look at what went
wrong and what went right with the process to address this complaint.
Mr. Wayne stated that this information is public record, and
members
of the committee stated that this would be a valuable case
study, but they don’t want to get bogged down in a specific
case.
Mr. Lawrence stated that undue influence is a difficult question,
because advocating on behalf of constituents is an appropriate
role for legislators. Undue influence also raises separation
of powers questions. One of the problems regarding legislative
ethics
is created by term limits. Since the presiding officers usually
serve only one term in this office, they have less authority
and legislative history to address breaches of legislative ethics.
Dr. Rensenbrink raised the issue of access to legislators,
and asked that the committee address the revolving door complex.
He
expressed concern that those with big bucks have access to legislators,
while the rest of the public have comparatively less access.
Access to legislators should be available on an equal basis.
Maine should
not congratulate itself by comparing itself to Washington. Maine's "clean
elections" laws have been a positive change, something that
Washington does not have.
Mr. Carpenter agreed that one of the most important things
a legislator can do is advocate for constituents, but stated
that
he was shocked to learn recently that a legislator who was
employed by a corporation was sitting on a committee that regulates
that
corporation and actively advocating with a state agency on
behalf of that corporation.
Mr. Thompson stated that there are many examples of legislators
sitting on committees related to their work; teachers on the
Education committee, police officers on the Criminal justice
committee, attorneys
on the Judiciary committee. He cautioned that we shouldn’t
lose the expertise that people bring to the legislature, and shouldn’t
shoot ourselves in the foot in the name of fixing things. He
also stated that lobbyist access is not in an of itself unethical,
that
lobbying is a valuable component of the legislative process,
and that he is concerned about the possibility of limiting access
to
anyone. He pointed out that most interests, including the public,
cannot be in Augusta full-time. They depend upon lobbyists to
represent them at the Legislature, including public interest
groups.
The committee reviewed the "Conflict-of-interest" laws
as they relate to the Legislature.
Doctor Featherman opened discussion of a committee work plan,
recognizing that the charge from the presiding officers calls
for six committee meetings and a committee report by November
22, 2006.
Ms. Gardner suggested that rather than organizing the committee’s
work around the existing statute, the work plan be organized
topically. After discussion, the committee settled on the following
general
issues:
1. Conflicts of interest (proceedings within the legislative branch)
2. Undue influence (legislators’ interactions with
other branches of government)
3. Lobbyist regulation
4. Revolving door
5. Gifts
6. House and Senate Ethics Committee rules and disciplinary guidelines
7. Education of legislators
Dr. MacKenzie asked whether the process will include opportunity
for public comment. Mr. Carpenter suggested that the committee
address two of the identified issues at each meeting, with opportunity
for public comment at the start of each meeting.
t was suggested that in reviewing laws in other states and
from other sources that the Committee approach addressing legislative
ethics problems based on "best practices."
Staff suggested that members who have questions or examples
of actions for which current ethics laws and rules are not clear,
call or send them to staff:
Kate Brogan, Senate President's Office – 287-1500
Ted Potter, Speaker's Office – 287-1300
The committee settled on a schedule of monthly meetings, to
be arranged in a way that is convenient for legislators who are
campaigning for reelection in November. The meetings will address
the identified issues as follows:
July 13th: Conflict of interest; Lobbyist regulation
Mid August: Undue influence; Revolving door
Mid September: Gifts; Rules and Guidelines; Educating legislators
Early October: Work session on committee report
Mid November: Finalizing committee report
The July meeting will be held on Thursday, July 13th, 10:00 – 2:00,
in the Legislative Council Chambers. Staff will publicize meeting
dates and will ensure that the public can link to an audio feed
of the meeting from the state web page. Prior to the next meeting,
committee members will be polled as to their preferences for future
meeting dates; meetings will not be scheduled on Mondays or Fridays.
