Ethics investigations deserve a full airing
Good for state Rep. Daymon Ely. The Democrat from Corrales managed to improve how the Legislature handles ethics cases in his last days as a representative. He did not seek reelection and is leaving the Legislature.
But before he says goodbye, Ely was successful in persuading the Legislative Council to add a tie-breaking vote to interim ethics committees that handle harassment charges against legislators.
This fifth member, importantly, does not come from the inside. The appointment will go to an outside attorney with a background in harassment issues. That brings expertise and objectivity to the process.
A tiebreaking vote makes it less likely that investigations will die on a 2-2 decision. In turn, that means taxpayers potentially can find out more about charges against sitting legislators.
The first interim ethics committee hears the charge and votes whether to refer the case. If a referral is made, the second committee holds a hearing, which is public. Having such hearings — with testimony from all sides — offers better odds for getting to the truth of an accusation.
This second step is essential; a tie vote means an accusation is filed away, with no clear outcome.
A fifth member guarantees a full hearing, unlike what happened in the recent case of Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque. The powerful lawmaker was accused of harassment by lobbyist Marianna Anaya. The interim ethics investigatory committee in the fall deadlocked on a 2-2 vote about the need for a hearing. With the tie, the investigation was shut down.
That vote, by the way, was confidential. It’s not clear which committee members favored a full investigation. Or why, for that matter. A no vote on whether evidence exists to support a charge doesn’t have to be an attempt to hide the truth. It can be the vote of someone who believes no case exists. Either way, citizens have no way of knowing.
The investigation appears finished, no conclusions reached. And that’s a shame.
It’s essential to rebuke harassment where it occurs and to ensure a safe work environment for legislators, staffers and all who interact with the Legislature. It’s also important for lawmakers charged with inappropriate behavior to be able to defend their reputations — and a public hearing provides exactly such an opportunity.
The anti-harassment policy is new, and the system to root out problems in its operation remains a work in progress.
Placing four members on the interim committees — two Republicans, two Democrats — never made sense. Ties, as we have seen, were too likely. In the case of Ivey-Soto, the internal report prepared for the committee was leaked; it was clear an impartial observer found a pattern of questionable behavior on the part of the senator that needed to be addressed. A fifth vote, from an outsider with no interest in protecting the Legislature or with scoring points against the opposition, will be a worthy addition to the process.
Being able to make a claim against a powerful member of the House or Senate was a step forward in improving Roundhouse operations. So was having committees ready to hear any claims. But if credible allegations are made and then simply stall, having the harassment policy in place still is not enough.
As we have written before, a fully independent body to investigate claims against sitting legislators should be the end goal. Come January, when the Legislature returns, there is nothing to prevent lawmakers from improving their anti-harassment policy. Until that day, Ely has made sure investigations won’t wither in stalemate.