Louisiana Governor’s Legal Battle Sets New Ethics Probe Standard

    0
    0

    In New Orleans, Louisiana stands on the brink of implementing a set of legislative changes that critics fear may obstruct the state’s ethics board from effectively holding public officials accountable. This controversial legislation was penned by the personal legal advisor of Republican Governor Jeff Landry, who is concurrently embroiled in charges of violating state ethics laws. Supporters of the bill argue that the proposed measures will offer more opportunities for those accused of ethics violations to address the allegations, enhance transparency, and curb potential misuse of the system. However, watchdog organizations and the Board of Ethics are concerned that these changes might actually weaken the board’s oversight capabilities.

    While the new regulations will not affect the current charges against Governor Landry, the legislation further consolidates his influence over the ethics board, which predominantly comprises his appointees. The bill has already secured overwhelming approval in both legislative houses, with only minimal opposition, and now awaits the governor’s signature.

    According to Republican Representative Gerald “Beau” Beaullieu, who championed the bill, complaints by officials pointing out that the board’s investigative procedures are oppressive spurred this legislative action. The governor’s office has refrained from commenting on the matter.

    One significant aspect of the legislation, crafted by Governor Landry’s personal lawyer, Stephen Gelé, is a provision to disclose the identities of complainants to the officials they accuse, as well as imposing restrictions on the board’s capacity to initiate investigations. Gelé, who is representing Landry against current ethics charges concerning undisclosed lavish plane rides to Hawaii during his tenure as attorney general, has stated that negotiations regarding the charges are ongoing.

    Gelé has previously cautioned lawmakers that the Board of Ethics’ investigative rights pose a threat to fundamental constitutional rights and has been endeavoring to curtail these powers with the new legislation. Supporters assert that the bill enhances the board’s discretion on investigations, reduces unnecessary taxpayer spending, and strengthens due process for the accused.

    Nonetheless, the legislation raises significant concerns among critics. The Board of Ethics, in communication with legislators, voiced displeasure over a clause allowing officials to receive subpoena copies, which could enable them to manipulate witness testimonies. Additionally, critics argue that the law dilutes the board’s authority by granting local courts the power to halt investigations, allowing officials to stretch timelines, and limiting the board from probing declared violations to seek advisory opinions.

    A new requirement for a two-thirds majority vote by board members to initiate investigations into complaints and file charges further raises hurdles compared to the current requirement of a simple majority vote. President of the Council for a Better Louisiana, Barry Erwin, noted that this higher threshold could be challenging for a politically appointed board.

    Another related bill, which was not crafted by Gelé, stipulates that individuals filing ethics complaints must do so in person, revealing their identities at the ethics board’s Baton Rouge office. This measure, already approved in the House, is awaiting a Senate decision. Critics, like David Bordelon, counsel for the ethics board, argue that the bill could enable officials to intimidate witnesses and drastically reduce the number of incoming complaints.

    Kellee Hennessey Dickerson, a Republican representative who sponsors this legislation, frames it as a pursuit of truth and justice. Dickerson, previously fined for an ethics violation, maintains that knowing the identity of one’s accuser provides peace of mind while navigating expensive legal defenses. She suggests that complaints are often filed to politically harass opponents. Critics argue that the ethics board holds impartial evaluations and allows the accused a chance to respond if charges are filed.

    The proposed measures also limit the board from initiating inquiries based on external sources like media reports. Legislation enacted last year grants the governor direct appointment power over nine of the board’s 15 members, with legislative appointment accounting for the remaining six. This shift, watchdogs highlight, increases political influence over the board, potentially compromising its independence.

    Barry Erwin expressed concerns over this increased political influence, saying, “It’s gone from a process that was as much arm’s length away from politics as we could make it, and we had it that way for many years, to a process now that is very much more political than we’ve ever seen it. It’s going to be very difficult for the board to act in a way that guarantees that kind of oversight we want to have.”