North Carolina Enters the Dark Ages

North Carolina's 2006 state ethics reform turned out the lights, according to an article in yesterday's Charlotte Observer. The new system provides that there will be no public hearings before the new state ethics commission unless the accused asks for one. In many cases, when a case is dismissed or a reprimand is given, no one will ever know.

Hugh Stevens, a Raleigh attorney, is quoted as saying, very aptly, 'It's the proverbial tree falling in the forest and nobody hears it.' Without public knowledge of the ethics enforcement process, there is no accountability. There is hardly reason for an enforcement mechanism at all.

The chair of the ethics commission wanted to have open hearings and closed deliberation, as had been done before. But the legislative leadership decided to close the hearings, as well.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The House speaker is quoted as saying that 'a goal of the law was to encourage legitimate ethics complaints. Earlier disclosure likely discourages some reports.' That's double-talk. If they cared about discouraging reports, they would have allowed the complainant to make the decision about closed or open hearings. The speaker clearly had nothing honest to say in defense of the law. The fact is that legislators want it this way because it suits them, it's in their best interest, nothing more.

It's enough to have the process closed and confidential until probable cause is found. After that, the interest in public accountability is far greater than the interest in protecting the accused (which is what other legislators used as the reason). The North Carolina legislature has passed a travesty of an ethics reform that, when fully understood, will undermine the public's trust in government.

If a municipal official suggests this level of secrecy, and talks about protecting complainants or respondents, remind him or her that ethics programs are not primarily about protecting the parties, but about protecting the public by making public officials accountable for their conduct. Tell him or her that complainants can be protected by good whistle-blower provisions, and that respondents can be protected by confidentiality before a finding of probable cause.

And finally, remind him or her that if a complainant or anyone else wants to make their accusations public, nothing can stop them. That's what courts have consistently said the Constitution requires. So, confidentiality is not about protecting reputations, it's about protecting officials. All anyone can be asked to keep confidential about is the fact of filing a complaint and anything to do with the investigation.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics