Jindal’s Ethics Agenda Scrutinized By Ethics Board Chairman

Specifically:

Item 04:

(5) requiring greater separation between the Ethics Board’s advisory, investigatory, and prosecutorial functions;

(6) providing for a confidential advisory process and requiring that all opinions be sterilized before publication to preserve the confidentiality of public servants requesting opinions;

(7) requiring the Ethics Board to expedite the process for, and maintain confidentiality during, the initial screening of complaints;

(8) requiring that all complaints not warranting investigation be summarily dismissed and expunged;

(9) requiring the Ethics Board to offer consent judgments for expedited compliance following investigation but before charges are filed, with all final consent judgments made public (read this one closely);

(10) separation the prosecutorial and adjudicatory process by utilizing administrative law judges to preside over hearings and to rule on charges on penalties. (Administrative law judges, apparently, are civil service employees)

Jindal is speaking about his ethics proposal tonight at 6:30 on all Louisiana PBS stations. Perhaps he should address the chorus of criticism his plan has already engendered. And before any Jindal campaign supporters plea for a “chance,” no one is refuting the bulk of the new ethics laws aimed at the legislature (except for a Republican, Michael Walsworth, who wants to keep the free tickets provision), and many are pleased that Jindal decided to include campaign finance reform (although it really doesn’t go far enough).

The issues in question were not a part of Jindal’s campaign message. They were not even mentioned in his campaign’s famous 31-point-plan on ethics.

Here’s the specific criticism (from the Daily Advertiser):

While Jindal has called for greater transparency in government, Board Chairman Hank Perret of Lafayette called restrictions on the board “a move away from transparency.” Gray Sexton, long-time general counsel for the ethics board who resigned last year, was harsher. He said, if passed, the board would take a giant step backward – setting operations of the board back two decades.

The objections targeted proposals that would “sterilize” ethics advisory opinions of information that identifies those who turn to the board for advice, remove the board’s power to enforce the law, and allow settlements to be reached in closed-door sessions with no public discussion.Perret and former Ethics Board Chairman Robert Roland of Baton Rouge raised questions about Jindal’s proposal to take the authority to conduct hearings on ethics violations away from the board and give it to an administrative law judge.

Roland said the result would be creation of another layer of bureaucracy.

Is this about increasing transparency? Or is this about allowing the administration greater control over a weakened Ethics Board?

Sexton was interviewed by CentralLaPolitics, and he explains his criticisms in depth. Perret, by the way, was appointed during Mike Foster’s administration. From The Shreveport Times:

Henry C. Perret, Jr., chairman
Appointed by former Gov. Mike Foster in 2000 and reappointed in 2001 and 2006 (Gov. Kathleen Blanco); final term expires in 2011. Perret, a Lafeyette-area lawyer, represents the 7th congressional district and was made chairman about four months ago.