NCPE at NV Legislature 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.
April 2, 2007
TO: Chair Ellen Koivisto, and Committee Members, Assembly Committee on Elections, Procedures, Ethics and Constitutional Amendments
Fax 1-775-684-8893
FROM: Dr. Craig Walton, President, and Members, Nevada Center for Public Ethics (Fax 1-702-395-2876)
Subject: Testimony for AB 605
Dear Chairwoman Koivisto and Members:
My name is Craig Walton, speaking as President of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics. 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. We support all 3 portions of AB 605. We do have some questions and suggestions.
First, Sec. 1, page 2 shows that the current law requires that the NV. Commission on Ethics will publish an Ethics Manual with 4 parts – [a] hypothetical opinions abstracted from the body of all previous opinions, [b] abstracts of selected previous opinions, [c]an abstract of the requirements of the ethics law, and [d] annotations to this to be written by the Legislative Counsel. At present, only [c] is available. The ability of Nevada to teach and to enforce our ethics laws hinges on the provisions of parts [a], [b] and [d] even moreso than on [c] because those parts allow one to teach, and to learn about real world cases, and also hypothetical cases which illustrate parts of a case that could arise, and the Counsel’s annotations which give context and wider meaning to the terms being used. Some step must be taken by this Committee to encourage and, if staffing or funds are needed, to provide them so that the NCOE can prepare and teach the full Ethics Manual with all 4 parts.
Sec. 1, # 7 and 8 on page 3 provide for an ethics course for elected and appointed public officials, to be done 4 times in the 2 months after an election, and also for lobbyists, 6 or more times before and after a legislative session . One question: Does “legislative session” cover city council and county commission meetings? It should, because they legislate and they are lobbied. If it does not, then Nevada should use language here which covers all lobbyists, not just those coming to Carson City.
Sec. 2, on pg. 9, at #9, adds specific language to stop public officers, employees or legislators from using government time, equipment or staff for campaign purposes. One might assume this had been implicit in Sec. 2, # 1-8, but the Kathy Augustine impeachment trial revealed that a defense lawyer can claim there is no specific language forbidding these practices. We need Sec. 2, #9.
Sec. 3 doubles the maximum fines for first, second and third violations of ethics laws. We support this change, not only because of inflation adjustment, but because it adds motivation to read the laws and take care to obey them, rather than treating a small fine as just the cost of doing one’s unethical business.
Sec. 4, pg. 7, complements Sec. 1, #7 about an ethics course, and provides that one could take this only once and be in compliance. But then, it also states, in #2, lines. 14-19, that this person must acknowledge completing the course that he or she has received and read and understands the ethical standards. This language strengthens Nevada’s expectation that this law shall be given personal attention, not just a not of formal acceptance.
Sec. 5, pg. 7, #1 and 2 will change NRS 218.918 on lobbyists, to make that statute fit with the changes at Sec. 1, #8. We need to add that this provision is detailed at greater length in AB 142, which has already been heard.
We give AB 605 our full support. We should want to emphasize, however, that our comment about the current lack of a 4-part Ethics Manual will greatly hamper every objective of AB 605. This is because the successful teaching of political ethics requires the 3 missing elements -- real world cases, hypothetical cases designed to illustrate vital points, and Counsel annotations which show how these terms and standards are used in other statutes and in the legal community.
Thank you for your consideration.
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.
