May 29, 2008
Ethics Commission deserves a chance to work as intended
editorial - Asheville Citizen-Times

New rules governing the ethical behavior of state lawmakers need to be tweaked to remove a vague request to list “any actual or potential conflicts of interest” and to clarify who’s in charge of investigating complaints. 
 
The need for the changes is apparent in the wake of a probe by State Auditor Les Merritt into an anonymous complaint his office received concerning state Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe. 
 
 
As a result of the complaint, Merritt, a Republican, conducted an investigation and concluded that Nesbitt should have disclosed his connection to Blue Cross Blue Shield on a nine-page form lawmakers are required to complete detailing their economic interests.  
 
Blue Cross Blue Shield is a former sponsor of Nesbitt’s son’s racing team for which Nesbitt works in a volunteer capacity as a crew chief. 
 
Nesbitt specifically asked the two-year-old State Ethics Commission whether he needed to list the connection between Blue Cross Blue Shield and his son’s racing team in response to the question regarding “actual or potential conflicts of interest.” He was told he did not. 
 
If “we give you advice, and you follow that, you should be able to take that to the bank,” Ethics Commission Executive Director Perry Newson said. 
 
In a statement released Tuesday, along with his report on Nesbitt, Merritt says, “The obligation to bring ‘sunshine’ arises out of a higher duty as a public official even if not technically required by state law.” 
 
Problems to resolve 
 
The case exposes problems that must be resolved. Merritt’s office argues that the Ethics Commission is not truly independent because reports on investigations into lawmakers need approval by a legislative ethics panel before being released to the public. 
 
The ethics committee counters that bipartisan enforcement of ethics rules is “threatened by a partisan elected official’s efforts to interpret and investigate violations of the Act.” 
 
The Ethics Commission was created to police public servants in the wake of scandals including one that sent former House Speaker Jim Black to federal prison on bribery charges. It’s a bipartisan board consisting of four Democrats and four Republicans. 
 
It’s unfair of Merritt to fault Nesbitt for following the advice of the commission established to regulate and decide ethical questions. It looks like partisan mudslinging and undermines efforts to set clearly defined rules and enforce ethical behavior across the board. The attack seems even more baseless given that Nesbitt has often taken the opposite side of issues of interest to Blue Cross Blue Shield. 
 
The Ethics Commission deserves a chance to work as lawmakers intended. For that to happen, all ethics complaints should be referred to it so they can be treated even-handedly — something that’s more likely to happen when members of both parties have equal representation. 
 
Bipartisan panel 
 
Merritt’s argument that the commission is not truly independent has some merit, but with members of both parties serving on its board, there’s less likelihood that truly unethical behavior will escape oversight. Besides, under the state constitution, only the General Assembly may discipline its members. 
 
As for the vaguely worded question about “any actual or potential conflicts of interest” on the statement of economic interest form lawmakers must complete, it leaves too much to interpretation. What one person may consider a conflict of interest, another may not. The question needs to be removed. If more information is needed, specific questions should be formulated. 
 
Bills introduced last week by members of the bipartisan legislative ethics panel, including Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat, and House Republican Leader Paul Stam, of Apex, would require the auditor to refer all complaints dealing with ethics laws to the commission. Lawmakers should approve the bills, giving the commission a fair chance to serve its intended purpose.