This article was prepared for the local propublica reporting network in partnership with Northern Dakota monitor. Sign up for sending To get our stories in the mailbox every week.
Since the voters of the Northern Dakota have created an ethics agency seven years ago, dubious legislators pushed back from giving it power to monitor government officials.
It was exactly at the session that just ended because the legislators stopped many requests from the ethics commission, keeping the modest budget agency and the restoration measures that would give her more latitude in their investigations.
The Governor and Prosecutor General’s Office also claimed that the state’s Constitution does not allow the commission to create or impose a fine for ethics.
“I hoped that the tide was turning,” said Karl Rose Hanson, a Democrat from Farga and a member of the applause committee who worked on the commission’s budget. “But my overall perspective is that the legislative body in general, in particular, most party, are very hostile to the ethics and their work commission.”
Northern Dakotana, tired of what they saw as state officials who voted in 2018 voted in 2018 change the state constitution And create a commission on ethics. The amendment established rules for public officials and expanded the right of the commission to create more rules and to investigate the alleged violations related to corruption, elections, lobbying and transparency.
Northern Dakota was one of the last states created by the ethics agency, and since then the commission has fought for the fulfillment of its mission, Northern Dakota monitor and propublica reported this year. The amendment has left a certain ambiguity regarding the role of the commission and can it obey the laws on ethics, which will lead to constant differences on how it acts.
The actions of state leaders this year further killed the agency at a time when government officials across the country work in different ways, to lapel or detention of a policy created through initiatives under the guidance of citizensIncluding those associated with abortion and payments of the employee.
Daniel Kaputa from the National Law Center of the non -profit company said several state governments worked to undermine ethics initiatives. This year, Northern Dakota’s leaders claim that an ethical agency cannot punish officials for violations, another example of this, she said.
“We have seen that it seems that the agreed efforts in these states are canceled to cancel or twist our language in such a way that the most profitable for those who want less forced execution,” Kaputa said, “Kaputa”, “Kaputa” said, ” Whose organization studied this issue. She said Northern Dakota is one of the most outrageous examples of what I saw. “
In the e -mail letter to the Northern Dakota monitor and the Proopublica, the governor’s office called “Take” a rough characteristic “and stated that the governor did not oppose the ethics commission.
As government officials are discussing the powers of the commission, the Northern Dakotana reports that there are greater concern about ethics this year than in anyone else. At the end of May, the commission received 72 complaints this year. 41 complaints were filed in all 2024.
By the end of last month, the commission had 63 complaints, some of which dated 2022. Agency-who has three state employees, and five commissioners who receive a small scholarship to observe the work, does not reveal or substantiated the complaint. (State law requires that the Commission keep complaints to the confidentiality until the end of the process, so little is known about the nature of application.)
The ethics commission supported Legislation in this session What is said to have repaired their process to speed up the investigation and allow it to close the case faster.
In accordance with this measure, funded by eight Republicans and two Democrats, the commission could resolve and refuse complaints at any time, not just at certain stages of the process of complaints. It would also be allowed to investigate the alleged violations of ethics without making someone filed a formal complaint. Currently agency Unable to explore some tips of northern Dakotan Because they must be filed as official complaints that some complainants are uncomfortable, the agency staff said.
Officers of the Governor’s Offices Kelly Armstrong and Prosecutor General Drew Urrhil, both Republicans, testified against the bill because they stated that it had given the commission too much of the authorities.
Face strong counteracting the state leader and his own reluctance to give the agency more powers, The House voted preferably to reject legislation. Most of the sponsors’ home voted against it.
Res. Austin Shauer, the Republican Western Farg, headed by the Committee, which worked on the legislation, recognized the tension between the Ethics Commission and the legislative bodies and opposition testimony of the executive power.
“The bill was mostly DOA and we just had to move on,” Shawer said.
Legislators instead settled on settings to the existing process; The commission requires to develop time management standards and the other allows it to unofficially resolve complaints about ethics in the accused. These settlements will only be published if all parties to the agreement consent.
“There are people who have been sitting with this complaint over the head, which is absolutely unfair,” said Mike NATO spokesman, Republican Bismarck, who criticized the commission and suggested some changes. He also stated that the commission’s load includes fake complaints filed by Northern Dakotan who want to “equip” the system against their political opponents. (Since the state law requires the commission to keep complaints in confidentiality, this requirement cannot be checked.)
Rebecca Binstok, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, said the agency would look for ways to manage obstacles that continue to slow the investigation process. “The commission should now consider how to correct the lack of process,” Binstok wrote in an e -mail.
Credit:
Michael Aterling/Northern Dakot Monitor
Legislature also approved the measure which Protects its members from persecution For the vote for what would give them financial benefit as long as they reveal their conflicts.
Legislators, some of whom they said they wanted to avoid accounting for taxpayers, also refused the agency’s request for $ 250,000 over the next two years for the fourth employee who conducted training and education for the public. This would allow the current employees to spend more time to investigate complaints, the agency staff said.
“I do not remember the public discussions,” we will have a multimillion-dollar government, “the Republican Republican, Republican Republican, said in April.
State leaders also claim that the legislative body is the only subject that can create a punishment for violations of ethics and delegate the execution of these punishments to the state body. The commission can only punish officials for violation if the legislative body will give him this powers, they said.
Chris Joseph, the governor’s general lawyer, showed this year that if the commission received the authorities as creating and performing punishments, it will “determine, comply with and interpret their own rules” unattended by other parts of the state government.
The commission, however, claims that its forced implementation body is in correction to the Constitution. This interpretation may soon be verified. In the e -mail, binstok pointed out that the commission staff completed the investigation into several cases and are waiting for commissioners taking measures that can include fines.
Ellen Chanfi, which is part of the group called “Badas -bum”, which organized the voting initiative and developed amendments, stated that voters intended for the ethics commission put punishment for violations.
“People who worked on the amendment realized that the only way to do violation of the following actions on any violations of the ethics rules was to ensure that the ethics commission is responsible,” she said.
Governor’s press -secretary Mike Novatsky said that if the amendment does not reflect what he would like, “they may always seek to clarify it with another amendment to the Constitution.”
