NCPE at NV Legislature SB 495 provides a one-year cooling offperiod for persons leaving the Public Utilities Commission, the Gaming Control Board, or “former public officers or employee
To: Chairwoman Senator Barbara Cegavske and Members, Senate Legislative Operations and Election Committee
From: Craig Walton, President, and Members, Nevada Center for Public Ethics
Date: April 7, 2007
Subject: REVISED Support for SB 495, with comment and suggestions.
My name is Craig Walton, and I am speaking as President, and behalf of the members of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics. After Thursday’s hearing, we would like to suggest a re-wording for AB 495, Sec. 1, #1, 2 and 3,
I. How to word the “Cooling off” provision #3?
Sec. 1, pp. 2-3, #1, 2 and 3, pp. 2-3, provides a one-year cooling off period for persons leaving the Public Utilities Commission, the Gaming Control Board, or “former public officers or employees”.
The clear intent of # 1 and #2 is that these are powerful state regulators who could easily be seen as valuable assets to, say, Nevada Power Co. or MGM Mirage if they changed horses in a short time; the one-year cooling-off period is justified and normal for other powerful policy-makers and regulators. But #3 raises questions as-written: it would seem any public official or employee at any level, however low in the chain of command and however far-removed from policy-making or regulatory decision-making, must obey the cooling-off period (As Sen. Beers noted).
We would like to suggest that #3 at pg. 3, lines 14-23, be revised to read as follows:
“In addition to the prohibitions set forth in subsections 1 and 2, a former public officer or employee in the Executive Branch at the policy- or regulatory-levels shall not accept any employment , with any business or in any industry whose activities are governed by policies and regulations adopted by a department, division or other agency of the Executive Branch of government by which the former public officer or employee was employed, when that employment involves appearing on behalf of the new employer before that same policy-making or regulatory body, for 1 year after the termination of his service or period of employment if:….”
We think the change in bold-face links the definition of the class of those affected to the 3 conditions given in lines 24-33, and so it now means ‘if you are doing Type A work, you must wait one year if your duties included (a), (b) or (c).’ Most public officials and employees in the Executive Branch do NOT do that kind of work and so would not be affected. Legislators are in the Legislative Branch and so, if they returned to or took a new job with an entity regulated or governed by policies of the Executive Branch they would not be in violation.
II. Commission Counsel
We retain our concern about Sec. 6, pg. 6, which allows not only the Ethics Commissioners, but now also the NCOE Executive Director, to prescribe the duties of the Commission Counsel. This would prevent conflicts of the kind that occurred recently, at least administratively. But there is no provision for appeal or a channel for reconsideration, so that the Commission Counsel, who is professionally bound by the ABA Canon of Ethics, could be ordered by the Executive Director, who usually is not a member of the bar and has no national professional code of ethics by which to guide her or his daily practice, to carry out an act or policy creating an ethical conflict. Is it enough, in such a case, simply to say, as Sec. 6 does, that in such a case the Executive Director is empowered to give that assignment, “take it or leave it”? We would recommend that in such cases the Attorney General be asked to resolve the conflict.
Thank you for your consideration.
Craig Walton, President, on behalf of the members, Nevada Center for Public Ethics
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.
