NCPE at NV Legislature AB 142 - to require ethics instruction and lobbyists to the Executive Dept. to register and report expenditures.
To: Chairwoman Ellen Koivisto and members,
Assembly Elections, Procedures, Ethics and Constitutional Amendments
Committee
FAX 1-775-684-8893
Date: March 5, 2007
Subject: Support for AB 142, to require ethics instruction and lobbyists to the Executive Dept. to register and report expenditures.
My name is Craig Walton. I am President of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 142. These remarks are in two parts, as is AB 142:
First, on ethics instruction for new legislators and newly-registered lobbyists: Our 1999 Clark County Ethics Task Force requested such instruction for Clark County and all of Nevada. Our 2003 Task Force requested it once again, to no avail. In 2001, I worked with the Nevada Commission on Ethics’ legal counsel and the Legislative Counsel Bureau to provide ethics instruction for new legislators, emphasizing the provisions of NRS 281, the principles of government ethics, and case studies. At the time, we were told that that class was helpful and appreciated.
But the objection is often heard that ‘ethics can’t be taught’, that a person is good or bad by the time they reach adult life. Since nothing can be done to change them, either way, why waste time?
Having studied and taught ethics in universities here and abroad since 1964, and also having done several ethics workshops for businesses and for government departments at local and state levels, two brief observations can be made:
[1] First, it is true that a morally corrupt person will not be made honest by sitting through such a class. But he may learn of penalties and the expectations of others, which might factor into his immoral calculations. In the best case such classes can teach him that the environment around him is hostile to his plans, will be looking for them, and will punish them. This doesn’t cure him of his corruption, but it may inhibit his acting on them.
[2] Second, the claim that everyone is just good, or is just bad, is far too simple: good people entirely new to NRS 281 can make bad judgments because they did not know what they were doing. We have seen several examples of this recently. What counts as a conflict of interest, and why, is not a simple issue. What counts as the reason for disclosure, and the details needed to make it truthful, is not a simple issue. When to abstain and when to give one’s reasons and vote, is not a simple issue. All of these require learning of terms and the relevant principles, plus relevant examples, practice, and discussion with peers in order to develop the sensibilities, the savvy, and the reasoning skills needed to work through these situations with good sense. If “common” sense were common, we would not be here. What makes it “common” is when we do the work to share it with each other -- and that is ethics instruction of the right kind. The Nevada Center for Public Ethics strongly recommends passage of this portion of AB 142.
Second, on registration and reporting by those who lobby the Executive Departments: These sections parallel NRS 218.900-944 concerning those who lobby the Legislature. Without this new set of provisions the abuse can continue, by which executive-branch elected and appointed officials can be lobbied year-‘round but those lobbyists would report nothing – no gifts, to expenditures, and no parties. With these new sections, every aspect of lobbying covered for the Legislature would now be covered for those who lobby anyone in the executive branch - which as we know is a year-‘round activity, not limited by the legislature’s time in session. From our discussions of AB 142, it looks as if all the strong points of NRS 218.900 have been duplicated here, including the penalty provisions.
There are a few weaknesses we need to mention:
First, at p. 3, Section 5, new paragraph 3, requiring the lobbyist to report a list of all legislation the registrant sought to influence is unnecessary and dubious: it is unnecessary because the lobbying of the public official shall have been reported anyway, with any expenditures, so this is redundant; and it is dubious, because it is not unethical to lobby for a ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ on a bill, once you have registered and complied with the reporting rules (in fact, doing so defines the lobbyist’s activity). So we recommend dropping Section 5, paragraph 3, p. 3, lines 27-31.
Second, on pg. 9, Sec. 24, lines 25-26, the Secretary of State is required only to make lobbyists’ reports available “for public inspection during regular office hours”. Why NOT add “and on the Secretary of State’s website” ? The ethics issue is about the money, who is spending what to influence whom, or influence regulation or action on what rule or law? We need to know who, and how much money or which gifts, if we are honestly to evaluate the public officials’ actions taken in our names. With public libraries, offices, schools, and many homes having computer web access, it is not practical and not good policy to restrict the availability of these lobbyist reports to the physical place and regular office hours of the Secretary of State in Carson or Las Vegas or Reno. The reports should be posted on the web, so that anyone, anywhere in Nevada, can read them at any hour of the day or night. We strongly recommend amendment of Sec. 24, lines 25-26 to include the words, “…and on the Secretary of State’s website”.
With these modifications, AB 142 would be stronger, and it is a long-overdue extension of coverage of lobbyist activities to their time and resources spent with Executive branch officials – probably the largest part of their annual activity. We recommend its passage, with these modest changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
From: Craig Walton, President, and members,
Nevada Center for Public Ethics
fax 1-702-395-2876
Go to other 2007 testimonies
AB 80, to require Limited Liability Corporations (LLC’s) to report contributions. As to the relationship to NCPE's 11 proposals, AB 80, is close to NCPE's proposal on p. 1 of our doc.
AB 109, - allows leftover campaign monies to go to a public-purpose Trust Fund.
AB 143, - changes the NV. Commission on Ethics deadline for completing an inquiry from 45 days to 1 year, and also allows the complainee to be told what is happening to his or her complaint.
SJR 1 - removes the requirement that affidavits be provided with ballot initiative petitions.
SB 79 - brings our statutes into line with a court ruling that the affidavit requirement for ballot petitions is a violation of the First Amendment.
SB 144, to require Limited Liability Corporations (LLC's) to report contributions.
AB 142 - to require ethics instruction and lobbyists to the Executive Dept. to register and report expenditures.
AB 605 requires ethics training for new public officers and also for lobbyists, forbids the use of one’s office staff or equipment for campaign purposes, and doubles the three levels of penalties for violating ethics laws.
SB 495 provides a one-year cooling offperiod for persons leaving the Public Utilities Commission, the Gaming Control Board, or “former public officers or employees”. Original Testimony Revised Comments
SB 494 - dealing with primary, general, and municipal elections, SB 494 changes the filing deadline for campaign contribution reports.
