Bill promoted by North Dakota Ethics Commission gets ‘11th hour' opposition from Gov. Armstrong

Yahoo

21-02-2025

Rebecca Binstock, left, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, Logan Carpenter, center, general counsel for the Ethics Commission, and Alisha Maier, right, operations manager for the Ethics Commission, listen during a committee hearing on Jan. 31, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
A bill that aims to streamline how the Ethics Commission operates hit a roadblock Thursday when the governor's attorney testified against it.
The testimony came about three weeks after the bill's hearing and just days before a legislative deadline, leaving lawmakers little time to weigh amendments to the proposal.
House Bill 1360, supported by the Ethics Commission, is intended to simplify and streamline the rules and laws governing its complaint process.
The Ethics Commission says the bill would help make its procedures easier for the public to understand.
Ethics Commission to seek legislation to bolster transparency, investigative authority
Chris Joseph, general counsel for Armstrong's office, testified Thursday that the bill would grant the commission too much power — allowing it to define and execute its own rules without meaningful checks from other areas of government. The Ethics Commission says the bill doesn't fundamentally change its authority.
'The Legislative Assembly must have a broader conversation regarding the scope of the commission's perceived ability to enforce,' Joseph told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee.
Committee Chair Austen Schauer, a West Fargo Republican, said that it's 'quite unusual' for the governor's office's lead counsel to speak so strongly against a bill before a legislative committee.
He said Joseph's testimony could be an indication Armstrong would veto the bill if it passes.
'There's a bit of a poison pill that you're delivering here, you understand that, don't you?' Schauer asked Joseph.
House Bill 1360 would give the commission significantly more autonomy over when and how it conducts investigations. Members of the public could share information with the commission without having to submit a formal complaint, for instance. The bill also eliminates language in state law that is mirrored in the Ethics Commission's rules.
The Governor's Office says this would grant the commission overbroad enforcement authority.
Joseph said Thursday that the North Dakota Constitution tasks the Legislature with setting civil and criminal penalties for violations of ethics rules and laws.
The Attorney General's Office has voiced similar concerns with the proposal.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness told the committee last month that the state could be sued over the amendments proposed by House Bill 1360.
'The constitution does not allow the Legislative Assembly to delegate this kind of enforcement authority,' she said.
Voters created an ethics commission in North Dakota. Then the Legislature limited its power.
Representatives of the governor did not testify during the bill's public hearing on Jan. 31, or submit written testimony until Thursday. Joseph emphasized in his testimony that the governor does not oppose the Ethics Commission.
Ethics Commission Executive Director Rebecca Binstock said the agencies misunderstand the purpose of the bill.
'1360 simply affirms recognition of the Commission's constitutional authority to create rules,' she wrote in a letter addressed to Schauer.
She added that when the bill talks about enforcement action, it refers to the commission's investigation process.
The Ethics Commission is still subject to checks and balances from the other three branches of government, Binstock said. The Legislature sets the agency's budget, while the governor's office, Senate majority leader and Senate minority work together to appoint the commissioners. The commission's enforcement actions can also be appealed to district court, she added.
Members of the legislative committee signaled on Thursday they were unsure what to do with the bill after receiving mixed messages from state agencies.
'I think we are in the last 11th hour on this bill, and I think there's some significant issues with it,' Rep. Vicky Steiner, R-Dickinson, said during the hearing.
Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, asked Joseph if amendments could be proposed to find a solution.
'There's obviously some issues that need to be worked out,' Satrom said. 'I'm just wondering if we can have some proposals to find some middle ground where everybody's happy.'
Schauer reiterated comments he made three weeks ago that he wishes there had been more communication among the Ethics Commission, the Attorney General's Office and the Governor's Office on the bill.
No one offered any proposed amendments Thursday. The committee voted 9-1 to give the bill a do-not-pass recommendation.
The committee also voted against House Bill 1505, sponsored by House Majority Leader Mike Lefor and Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, which would protect lawmakers from being prosecuted for a conflict of interest crime if they follow conflict of interest guidelines and/or the guidance of the Ethics Commission.
The immunity would only apply to prosecution for casting the vote; it wouldn't cover any other actions taken by that lawmaker related to an alleged conflict of interest, Legislative Council Attorney Liz Fordahl said during the hearing.
Both bills will advance to the House floor for votes.
The Ethics Commission was established in 2018 by a voter-initiated constitutional amendment.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX