Ethics commissioners say bill would impose an arbitrary cutoff for investigations
Commissioners Murray Sagsveen, left, and Ronald Goodman, right, members of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, listen to a House committee hearing on March 18, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
The Ethics Commission fears changes approved by North Dakota lawmakers earlier this week could allow alleged ethical violations by public officials to go unaddressed.
'We're going to allow ethical concerns to fester,' Executive Director Rebecca Binstock said during a special meeting on Tuesday to discuss how legislation making its way through the session could impact the commission's work.
Members of the House on Monday voted to approve a number of amendments to the commission's budget, Senate Bill 2004, which included a new provision requiring the commission to dismiss ethics complaints older than 180 days. If the bill is signed into law, it would take effect immediately.
The change stemmed from some lawmakers' frustrations with the pace at which the commission processes complaints. Some filings are more than two years old.
North Dakota House removes new Ethics Commission position from budget, adds 6-month deadline
Commissioners asked Binstock how many complaints the board could be forced to dismiss if the bill is signed into law within the next few weeks
There are 28 complaints that will be more than 180 days old on May 1 — 17 of which are against state lawmakers, Binstock said.
Rep. Mike Nathe, who brought the amendments, has said the changes would give the commission a tool to reduce its number of pending complaints, some of which are more than two years old. He called the backlog a due process concern that is unfair to those accused of violations, including some of his colleagues in the Legislature.
Commissioners took issue with the notion that the deadline would help them.
'That's not a tool,' said Commission Chair Dave Anderson. 'Giving an arbitrary restriction is not a tool.'
Anderson also said that the Legislature should give the commission more resources if it wants the board to process complaints more quickly. The commission is following the procedures prescribed by the law, he said.
'We have things that have to be accomplished according to statute the Legislature approved,' Anderson said. 'So we can't just hurry things up.'
Nathe said previously that the intent of the bill is to have the 180-day clock start ticking against complaints as soon as the law goes into effect. Under that interpretation, the Ethics Commission would still have half a year to investigate those 28 complaints.
According to Binstock, the language of the bill is not completely clear, and the deadline may work differently in practice.
Commissioners worry the deadline will prevent the commission from meaningfully investigating complaints.
'You could have people who had a complaint filed against them stall in giving you information, which would take you past the 180 days, and so then it would be dismissed,' Commissioner Ward Koeser said.
If the deadline forces the commission to dismiss a complaint before an investigation is completed, the commission's efforts would go to waste, Binstock said.
'By following the arbitrarily imposed deadline, really what we could have is we could have quite a bit of work, quite a bit of resources put into something and then end up having nothing as a product because we just have to close it,' she said. 'I don't personally think this is a tool for North Dakota citizens.'
Senate narrowly approves adding position to North Dakota Ethics Commission
Commissioner Ron Goodman wondered whether the bill conflicts with the North Dakota Constitution, which states that the Legislature may not do anything that impedes the responsibilities assigned to the Ethics Commission under Article XIV.
'It seems to me that that's going to be a question that maybe the Supreme Court has to answer,' Goodman said.
The budget also includes a policy provision that Nathe said would help the commission throw out complaints that are unlikely to go anywhere but that the board does not have the ability to dismiss under current law.
The bill will go to a conference committee of representatives and senators, who will work out final changes to the bill.
The Senate approved a budget that included funding for a new staff member dedicated to education and communications, though that position was slashed by the House.
The commission's main priority for the conference committee will be urging lawmakers to add that funding back in. It also hopes to convince legislators to take policy provisions out of the budget, Binstock said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
39 minutes ago
North Carolina GOP sends immigration-crackdown bills to Democratic Gov. Stein
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Republicans at the North Carolina legislature gave final approval Tuesday to two pieces of legislation that would compel state agencies to participate in President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and would toughen a recent law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. The series of House and Senate votes on the measures could mean an early showdown between the GOP-controlled General Assembly and new Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who since taking office in January has tried to build rapport with lawmakers on consensus issues like Hurricane Helene aid. Stein has yet to a veto a bill, and pressure will build on him to use his stamp on one or both of the bills that were sent to him late Tuesday given the overwhelming Democratic opposition to the measures during floor votes. The GOP's legislative maneuvers happened as National Guard troops have been deployed by Trump to Los Angeles to confront protesters angry with federal conducting sweeps that led to immigrant arrests. Should Stein issue vetoes, Republicans in the ninth-largest state could face challenges in overriding them, since the GOP is currently one seat shy of a veto-proof majority. Republican leaders would need at least one Democrat for their side during an override vote or hope some Democrats are absent. Republicans say the measures are needed to assist the Trump administration's efforts to remove immigrants unlawfully in the country who are committing crimes and or accessing limited taxpayer resources that are needed for U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants. 'North Carolina is one step closer to increasing the safety of every citizen in the state,' said Senate Leader Phil Berger, a primary sponsor of one of the bills. 'The Republican-led General Assembly made it clear that harboring criminal illegal aliens will not be tolerated in our state." But Democrats and social justice advocates of immigrants say the bills vilify immigrants who work and pay taxes, leading residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement, which will ultimately make communities less safe. Demonstrators opposed to GOP action filled the Senate gallery during debate. Republicans are spending their time 'trying to sell a lie that immigrants are the source of our problems,' Democratic Sen. Sophia Chitlik of Durham County said, telling colleagues that their constituents 'didn't send us here to round up their neighbors. They sent us here to make their lives better.' Stein spokesperson Morgan Hopkins said late Tuesday that the governor "will continue to review the bills. He has made clear that if someone commits a crime and they are here illegally; they should be deported.' One measure receiving final approval in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That would include having to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. A Trump executive order urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access state-funded benefits and publicly funded housing benefits to which they are otherwise ineligible. The same applies to unemployment benefits for those aren't legally authorized to live in the U.S. And the bill also prohibits University of North Carolina system campus policies that prevent law enforcement agencies from accessing school information about a students' citizenship or immigration status. Thousands of international students attending college in the U.S. had their study permissions canceled this spring, only for ICE to later reverse decisions and restore their legal status. The other approved bill Tuesday builds on the 2024 law that lawmakers enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto that directed jails hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The law was a response by Republicans unhappy with Democratic sheriffs in several counties who declined to help immigration agents with offenders subject to federal immigration detainers and administrative warrants. The proposed changes expands the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator — expanding in the bill to magistrates — to attempt to determine the defendant's legal residency or citizenship. A defendant with an apparent detainer or administrative warrant would still have to go before a judicial official before a defendant could be released to agents. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that they are holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person.
an hour ago
Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators
PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would have personally been responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, called the veto 'disgraceful,' saying on the social media platform X that the legislation was meant to keep 'egregious and blatant antisemitic content' out of the classroom. 'To suggest that it threatened the speech of most Arizona teachers is disingenuous at best,' he added. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
November statewide special election for collective bargaining referendum ‘not off the table,' Cox says
SALT LAKE CITY () — Governor Spencer Cox is mulling whether to call a special statewide election this November that would allow Utahns to vote on repealing that bans public labor unions from collective bargaining. 'It's not off the table,' . 'We could have a special election this year, it's still possible.' During a monthly news conference with reporters, the Governor was asked about whether he would call a special election in 2025 or hold off until Utah has a scheduled statewide election in 2026. State law requires the referendum to be placed on a statewide ballot, but state law allows him to decide whether that's in the 'next regular general election' or whether he calls a special election. The Governor said he's still having conversations with the legislature and county clerks who would be tasked with overseeing a statewide election in a municipal year, to analyze the cost and other factors like whether it's a burden to cities that may cancel elections in 2025. 'Just trying to see what's best — is it best to get it on now and get it over with, is that easier? Is it too much pressure on places that won't be having an election?' Cox said. 'What kind of burden with that add? We're looking at all of those things, and we'll make a decision when that deadline gets closer.' Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' The Governor has until June 21 to make that call; that's when the Lt. Governor declares whether the referendum signature gathering effort was sufficient, which is all but certain after public labor unions . The office has from taking effect. 'No matter when this issue appears on the ballot, we are confident that when Utah voters decide, public workers will win. We are strong, ready, and united,' said a spokesperson for the Protect Utah Workers coalition — the group of labor unions that organized the referendum effort. 'The HB267 referendum made history with nearly 10% of Utahns signing the petition in just 30 days to put it on the ballot. Our success sends a powerful message: Utahns believe in the right to organize and stand with public workers,' their statement said. 'HB267 is a power grab by politicians trying to silence the voices of everyday working people. But more than a quarter million Utah voters saw through it and pushed back.' Neither the public labor unions nor Governor Cox elaborated on which year they would prefer, but it's almost certain that politics are at play for both sides. 'Somebody has to stop it:' Gov. Cox defends Trump's decision to deploy troops to LA Political insiders have told that holding a special election in 2025 could favor the law staying in place because turnout is lower in a municipal year, meaning there might be less support overall for the teachers, firefighters, and the other public workers whom voters, by and large, want to support. However, a recency bias from this past legislative session and the momentum from their signature gathering efforts, coupled with perceived injustices to those public workers, may also be a factor, those insiders noted. A 2025 election also gets the issue decided on faster. However, paying for a statewide election would come at a cost to taxpayers, likely in the millions. A 2026 election, however, could be the preferred path as it gives both sides more time to message and raise more money to fight off any counter-messaging. Bureau of Land Management approves construction of Millard County potash mine November statewide special election for collective bargaining referendum 'not off the table,' Cox says Family, police seeking information on missing 15-year-old girl from West Jordan RSL hoping to make a run in second half of season Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
