Mar 15, 2007
Open up: Keeping ethics meetings closed undermines public trust
Editorial - Charlotte Observer

When the General Assembly approved a comprehensive new ethics reform law in 2006, it went to some lengths to make sure that ethics complaints were taken seriously and meritorious ones were investigated thoroughly. That's good. 
 
But in trying to fine-tune the law to encourage those with factual allegations to come forward, it probably went too far in guaranteeing confidentially. So far, in fact, that the public may never learn about the investigation of a public official, says Robert Farmer, a retired Superior Court judge who chairs the new state ethics board. 
 
As the Observer reported Monday, the new ethics commission must keep its proceedings closed to the public -- much the same way as the Legislative Ethics Commission operates. That panel, which handles complaints against the N.C. General Assembly, hasn't met very often.  
 
The public has no idea how often it considers complaints or what it does with them if and when it does meet. The reason? Legislators worry that people with a grudge will file frivolous complaints against lawmakers that have only one purpose: sullying the reputation of an official without providing credible evidence. 
 
That's a reasonable concern for any public body. Public service can be demanding, and the last thing public institutions need is a forum for unhappy folks to lodge specious allegations against those whose decisions they don't like. 
But there is a larger issue we fear legislators have missed in this debate: the need to reassure the public that serious complaints are taken seriously and that the taxpaying public is entitled to know about it when an ethics body considers a valid complaint. The new ethics law at first proposed to keep investigations confidential but open hearings and meetings to the public. But the final version enacted into law keeps those sessions confidential as well, unless the person being investigated asks for it to be open. 
 
This is a formula that will further undermine public trust in government rather than enhance it. As Judge Farmer told the Observer's Mark Johnson, "My preference was to do it like we did under the governor's order, with the hearings open and the deliberations closed, like a jury." 
 
That's our preference, too. That's the way it was with the previous versions of the state ethics board going back 30 years when Gov. Jim Hunt first created the process. That's the process used when Southport residents complained about the granting of a new marina lease not far from Gov. Easley's home. The ethics board hearing was held in an open session. The board voted to dismiss the complaint in a private session, then announced its decision publicly. 
 
The process wasn't perfect, but here's the thing: It worked. It was democracy in a form that people understood and accepted. This is the public's business, after all. Legislators should open these ethics panels to anyone who chooses to attend -- and they should trust the public to understand what's going on.