The head of the organization that pushed hardest for a state Ethics Commission says it should be disbanded.
Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said Wednesday the commission was “worthless” and provided lawmakers “a fig leaf of protection” that they were addressing ethics concerns.
Vermont was one of the last states to establish an Ethics Commission in 2017. That came after years of discussion and receiving an F from the Center for Public Integrity on ethics enforcement.
The five-member commission and part-time executive director have no powers to investigate or levy punishment. The commission essentially operates as a referral agency, taking in complaints about state officials and sending them to another agency. The commission also provides an annual report to the Legislature on the number and nature of complaints it receives.
“As it’s currently set up, the Ethics Commission is worthless and a waste of tax dollars,” Burns said in an interview. He charged the Legislature established the commission simply to “get off the list of states without one.” The commission has a budget of about $120,000 a year.
“They don’t deserve the fig leaf,” he said.
A bill S.157, to expand the commission’s powers to include investigation and enforcement, sponsored by Sen. Anthony Pollina, went nowhere last year.
To Burns, the “final straw” came when the commission decided last year that it went beyond its authority and withdrew an “advisory opinion” that was critical of Gov. Phil Scott. The 2018 advisory opinion, issued a month before the election, found Scott violated state ethics and had an ongoing conflict of interest in connection with a construction company he sold after becoming governor. The opinion found there was a conflict because the company, Dubois Construction, still owes Scott money for his half share while it also holds a state contract.
VPIRG had requested the commission issue an advisory opinion on Scott’s situation.
Scott disputed the commission’s ruling and said it was politically motivated. He said no conflict existed because he has no involvement in the operations of Dubois Construction, the Middlesex firm he previously half-owned.
Last year, the chairs of the two key committees that set up the commission said the advisory opinion went beyond the authority lawmakers had approved. The commission’s first executive director, Brian Levin, also quit because he believed the commission had gone too far.
In response to criticism, the commission last year withdrew the Scott advisory opinion and removed it from its website. Lawmakers “clarified” that affected public officials, not outside groups, could request “advisory opinions” to guide them on ethical questions they faced. The advisory opinions are meant to be educational, not used a punishment, lawmakers said.
The commission’s current executive director, Larry Novins, said the commission was valuable, should be kept and that its powers should be expanded over time.
Novins said his goal this year was to have lawmakers put into statute the Code of Ethics the commission adopted last year. Until it is in place, Novins said adding investigatory or enforcement powers did not make sense. Burns said putting the Code of Ethics into statute wasn’t enough and that Novins’ timetable to add powers incrementally would take too long and meet lawmaker resistance.
“As much as we can bemoan the gaps in what we have now, I look at the other side” and believe that the two years since it was established helped “get a lay of the land” of what was missing and what is needed, Novins said.
Novins said he would not be pushing lawmakers to add investigatory or enforcement powers this year but sometime “hopefully not too far down the road.”
Novin is scheduled to testify before Senate Government Operations on Friday. He said Wednesday he also wants lawmakers to clear up where to send referrals when a complaint comes in. Many of the state’s commissions, boards and other departments don’t have anyone with jurisdiction over them to send a complaint, Novins said. For example, a complaint about a state official like the governor would go to the Human Resources Department, which does not oversee elected officials.
Pollina, who serves on Government Operations, said he understood Burns’ frustration but wanted to work to strengthen the commission first before considering disbanding it.
“I agree it needs to be strengthened and given real power and an enforceable Code of Ethics,” Pollina said, “and I’d rather go down that road and strengthening it before we talk about dismantling it.”
Pollina introduced a new bill this year, S.198, that would put the Code of Ethics in statute, and calling for it to be enforceable by the commission. The bill has no further language on enforcement.
In September, a report found Vermont is one of only three states with an independent ethics agency that has “limited or no power” to investigate state officials or impose sanctions.
The report, released by the Coalition for Integrity, a nonprofit that promotes government transparency, said a “toothless ethics agency serves no purpose.”
Pollina acknowledged expanding the commission’s power would be an uphill battle.
“It took a long time to start it,” said Pollina, P/D-Washington. “I think it’s had a rocky beginning but I think that’s partly because there was confusion as to what its powers actually are. So I think we have to sort it out.”
“It got mixed signals,” Pollina said.
Commission Board Chair Julie Hulburd said the commission would issue its annual report next week and would make recommendations, including establishing the Code of Ethics in state statute.
“The Commission believes that a statutory code of ethics is a necessary next step,” Hulburd said in an email.
Pollina said he sympathized with Burns.
“I don’t totally disagree with what (Burns) is saying. I just think it’s more important we try to rebuild it and empower it and make clear what its role actually is before we talk about scrapping it,” Pollina said.
Pollina said the public would react critically if the commission were dismantled, but Burns said a commission “in name only” was worse than no commission at all.
