Jun 03, 2008
Ethics Act needs revising to enhance transparency
Les Merritt - Asheville Citizen-Times

Guest commentary •  
 
 
We are in agreement with the editorial, “Ethics Commission deserves a chance to work as intended,” (AC-T, May 29), that the Ethics Act should be tweaked and that the Ethics Commission should be given time to work. However, we also agree with Speaker Hackney’s reported comment that while “ethics cases” fall within the purview of the Ethics Commission, lawmakers shouldn’t handcuff the Auditor’s Office. 
 
 
Conflicts of interest 
 
The definition of “ethics case” is central to this discussion. Conflicts of interest draw a larger circle than what is covered under the Ethics Act. These conflicts are considered as “abuse” under well-accepted auditing standards, and the Office of the State Auditor would be remiss in its auditing duties if these conflicts were ignored or forwarded on to a non-auditing agency. While the Ethics Act and the State Auditor’s auditing standards overlap on the issues of conflicts of interest, the pending draft legislation before the Legislative Ethics Committee would handcuff the Auditor’s Office from investigating these conflicts in over 4,000 covered State employees and appointees (a complete list of covered persons is available at: www.ethicscommission.nc.gov/).  
 
Less openness 
 
These employees are the leaders of our state serving everywhere from community colleges and universities to the executive staff for State agencies. The effect of removing the State Auditor from investigating these conflicts of interest would be less transparency in state government and a greater likelihood of abuse of power and waste of State resources. 
 
Transparency and openness in state government are goals that your editorial board and the Office of the State Auditor share. It has been well established that disclosure or recusal may mitigate conflicts of interest. If it is a contested point as to whether a conflict of interest exists, an open display of the facts where multiple parties can examine the facts in full sunlight should provide the best climate to reach a reasonable conclusion. Except where prohibited by statute, the Auditor’s Office makes its findings public through the release of audits and reports.  
 
Revisions needed 
 
The Ethics Act, as it is written now, erects a barrier to preclude the public, the press and the State Auditor from reviewing Ethics Commission staff opinions or verifying whether full information was conveyed to commission staff for them to render accurate opinions. Even the opinions issued by the full commission remain hidden from public view until they are redacted by the Legislative Ethics Committee and released in an annual summary.  
 
In conclusion, we recognize that most laws go through a refining process and the Ethics Act is a significant step in the right direction. The Office of the State Auditor’s goal is to fulfill auditing standards by continuing to investigate fraud, waste and abuse of state resources. Prohibiting the State Auditor’s investigators from reviewing potential conflicts of interest would constitute taking a step backward away from greater openness and transparency in state government and vest that power not in the hands of the public, but in the hands of a single legislative committee.  
 
Les Merritt is the North Carolina State Auditor.