|
2007-R-0715 |
October 2, 2007
TO: Bipartisan Senate Committee of Review
From: Office of Legislative Research and Legislative Commissioners' Office
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN OTHER STATES' LEGISLATIVE BODIES
SUMMARY
Almost all state constitutions provide that each chamber of the legislature can discipline its respective members. Although the basis for disciplinary action varies, disorderly conduct is the most common. An attached report from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) provides the text of these constitutional provisions.
The penalties available to each chamber generally range from a reprimand for minor punishable offenses to expulsion for the most egregious conduct. Most legislative rules do not define the types of punishment available or the conduct that subjects a member to each type of punishment. Some, such as the New Mexico House Rules, have general language that provides that a member can be expelled for “conduct that impugns the integrity of the House, reflects adversely on the House, or otherwise undermines public confidence in the institution of the House…” The New Mexico House Rules also specify when a reprimand or censure is warranted. Similarly, the Missouri House Rules define the conduct that subjects a member to censure, letter of reproval, or reprimand. These rules and a few others are described below.
While time constraints prevented us from compiling an exhaustive, detailed list of legislative disciplinary actions, we found 86 cases in 32 states. This includes only those actions in other states in which the legislature took some formal action to investigate a legislator (even if the legislator under investigation resigned or the legislative chamber ultimately voted to take no action). The report does not include cases in which the legislature failed to take any initial action; this typically occurred when the conduct in question was criminal and the legislator was prosecuted. It also does not include instances where a state's constitution, statute, or legislative rule requires suspension or removal of a member after a felony conviction.
Our research indicates that there have been no cases in recent years in 14 states: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. We did not receive information in response to our inquiries in Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington.
GROUNDS, STANDARDS, AND RULES ON DISCIPLINE
Definitions
We found one state, Missouri, with legislative rules that define the types of punishment that can be imposed. Missouri's House Rules of Procedure include the following definitions:
● “Censure—A sanction which recognizes the respondent's conduct constituted a legal or moral wrong, and which shall include punishment in the form of denying privileges of office, which recommendation is included as part of the committee's report and requires the presence of the respondent in the chamber during consideration and vote by the entire House on such resolution.”
● “Letter of Reproval—A sanction which expresses disapproval of conduct based on the appropriateness of such conduct by a legislator, regardless of whether the conduct constitutes a legal or moral wrong and is included as part of the committee's report.”
● “Reprimand—A sanction which recognizes the respondent's conduct constituted a legal or moral wrong and which may include punishment in the form of denying privileges of the office, which recommendation is included as part of the committee's report, is issued by the Speaker and the recommendation for reprimand is made a public record” (House Resolution No. 267 (2007), Rule 2).
Alabama's Senate Rules contain procedures for handling complaints of misconduct. They define “misconduct” as:
1. conduct “constituting a legal wrong that materially impairs the ability of the member to perform the duties of his or her office or substantially impairs public confidence in the legislature”;
2. conduct that intentionally violates a Senate rule in the conduct of Senate business, whether official or unofficial;
3. conduct during a term of office that sexually harasses someone;
4. conduct that violates the state ethics law;
5. conduct prohibited by the state constitution; or
6. intentionally filing a false complaint with the committee or filing one in reckless disregard of the truth (Rule 48).
General Standards or Grounds
We found a few legislative rules that elaborate on the type of conduct that subjects a legislator to punishment.
For example, in California, Assembly Rules provide that the Legislative Ethics Committee has the power “to investigate and make findings and recommendations concerning violations by members of the Assembly of any provision of… [the statutory ethics code]…or any other provision of law or legislative rules that govern the conduct of members of the Assembly…” (Rule 22.5(d) (1)).
In New Mexico, House Rules provide a general statement about expulsion: “While the constitution does not specify the grounds for expulsion, these may include conduct that impugns the integrity of the House, reflects adversely on the House, or otherwise undermines public confidence in the institution of the House…” (House Rule 9-13).
Another New Mexico House Rule elaborates on the types of punishment that can be imposed.
● “A reprimand is normally appropriate for a single, relatively minor act of unethical conduct or disorderly behavior in the presence of the House.”
● “Censure is normally the appropriate sanction for more serious or repeated acts of unethical conduct, contempt, or serious disorderly behavior in the presence of the House, although repeated or aggravated violations may merit expulsion. A representative who is censured shall not serve in any leadership position and shall not serve as the chairman or co-chairman of any standing or interim legislative committee for the remainder of that representative's pending term in office.”
● “The extraordinary power of expulsion generally should be reserved for very serious breaches of legal or ethical responsibilities of members that directly relate to their duties as House members, and that impugn the integrity of the House, reflect adversely on the House, or otherwise undermine public trust in the institution of the House” (House Rule 9-13-6.1).
New Mexico's Senate Ethics Rules address violations of Senate Rule 26-1, which covers conflicts of interest, undue influence, and abuse of office. The disciplinary rule states that: “A reprimand is appropriate for violations of Senate Rule 26-1. A censure is appropriate for repeated or flagrant violations of Senate Rule 26-1. A senator who is censured cannot serve in any leadership position or as the chairman or co-chairman of any standing or interim legislative committee for the remainder of that senator's term in office (Senate Rule 9-13-5).
Another rule elaborates on the types of punishment that can be imposed.
● “A reprimand is normally appropriate for a single, relatively minor act of unethical conduct or disorderly behavior in the presence of the House.”
● “Censure is normally the appropriate sanction for more serious or repeated acts of unethical conduct, contempt, or serious disorderly behavior in the presence of the House, although repeated or aggravated violations may merit expulsion. A representative who is censured shall not serve in any leadership position and shall not serve as the chairman or co-chairman of any standing or interim legislative committee for the remainder of that representative's pending term in office.”
● “The extraordinary power of expulsion generally should be reserved for very serious breaches of legal or ethical responsibilities of members that directly relate to their duties as House members, and that impugn the integrity of the House, reflect adversely on the House, or otherwise undermine public trust in the institution of the House” (Rule 9-13-6.1).
Specific Rules on Felony Indictments or Convictions
In some states, legislative rules require suspension, removal, or loss of privileges if a member is indicted or convicted of a felony.
South Carolina. Under Senate rules, a Senator who is indicted for a felony is suspended and an expulsion process is started if the senator pleads guilty or is convicted of a felony (Senate Rule 44.1).
Florida. A House member who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony may, at the discretion of the House speaker, be suspended immediately, without a hearing and without pay, from all privileges of membership of the House through the remainder of that member's term (House Rule 34).
A member convicted of a felony may, at the discretion of the House speaker, be suspended immediately, without a hearing and without pay, from all privileges of House membership pending appellate action or the end of the member's term, whichever occurs first. The suspended member may request a hearing. Upon receipt of the request, the Speaker must appoint a select committee to hear the case and issue a report to the House. The select committee's report is final unless the member asks the Speaker to have the full House consider it.
If on appeal the conviction is sustained, the member's suspension continues to the end of his or her term. If the final appellate decision is to vacate the conviction and no felony charges remain against the member, he or she is entitled to back pay and other benefits retroactive to the date of suspension (House Rule 35).
Minnesota. A House member cannot receive compensation, mileage, or living expenses while he or she is incarcerated or on home detention due to a criminal conviction (House Rule 9.30).
Washington. Any House member convicted and sentenced for any felony punishable by death or by imprisonment in a Washington state penal institution must, as of the time of sentencing, be denied the legislative salary for future service and be denied per diem, compensation for expenses, office space facilities and assistance. Any member convicted of a felony and sentenced under any federal law or the law of any other state must, as of the time of sentencing, be similarly denied such salary, per diem, expenses, facilities and assistance if (a) the crime would also constitute a crime punishable under the laws of Washington by death or by imprisonment in a state penal institution or (b) the conduct resulting in the conviction and sentencing would also constitute a crime punishable under the laws of Washington by death or by imprisonment in a state penal institution (House Rule 27).
ANALYSIS OF CASES
Procedurally, the chamber investigating misconduct generally referred the case to a standing or special ethics committee to conduct the actual investigation. The committee completed the investigation and reported its findings and recommendations to the full body, which usually accepted or followed the recommendations.
Table 1 shows details of 86 disciplinary cases in 32 states. Table 2 shows the 86 cases organized by final outcome. In 10 cases, nine states, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (2 cases), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and West Virginia, imposed the most severe punishment, expulsion. In Minnesota (3 cases), New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah, motions to expel failed. In a majority of cases where expulsion was the final outcome, the conduct being punished was related to official, rather than private, conduct.
Thirteen legislatures imposed the second harshest penalty, censure, 16 times. The censure cases were in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota (3), New Hampshire (2), New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia. Legislatures imposed censure in these states for both public and private misconduct, including berating other legislators in Maine, using their positions for personal gain in Alaska and Virginia, and engaging in criminal conduct in Georgia and Hawaii.
In 18 cases, a legislator resigned after the legislature took some action to investigate the member. In at least three of these cases, an investigating committee recommended expulsion before the resignation.
Legislatures in the remaining cases imposed various forms of reprimand, issued letters of admonishment, required apologies, voted to impose no sanction, or took no action because the legislator resigned before the full body could act.
In almost all cases, it appears that the chamber as a whole followed the recommendations of the investigating committee. However, in seven cases, the vote to follow the committee's recommendation came after a vote to impose a more severe penalty failed (e.g., Florida's John Thomas; Minnesota's Jeff Bertram, Sam Solon, Bob Johnson, and Randy Staten; New Hampshire's Gene Chandler; and South Dakota's Dan Sutton).
Sources of Information
To obtain information on disciplinary actions taken by other state legislatures, we (1) contacted NCSL and the Center for Public Integrity; (2) conducted Internet searches of newspapers and state legislative websites; (3) posed questions to legislative librarians on their Listservs; and (4) contacted legislative and state librarians, nonpartisan and caucus staff, parliamentarians, and chamber clerks. Although we received some information from most of these sources, we relied primarily on information from librarians, other legislative staff, and newspapers. Where we could, we obtained primary documents such as procedural rules, committee reports, journal transcripts, and resolutions. We have included applicable procedural rules. We can provide the other documents if you like.
* indicates legislative rules are in the Appendix
N/A indicates that the category was not applicable to that particular case.
STATE |
INCIDENT |
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION |
FINAL ACTION | ||
EXPULSION | ||||||
ALASKA |
In 1982, Sen. George H. Hohman, Jr. was convicted of felonious bribery and receiving a bribe for offering to share a $20,000 bribe with another legislator in return for a vote in favor of the state purchasing two Canadian firefighting planes. He was sentenced to three years in prison. |
The 6-member Senate Rules Committee (3 private citizens and 3 senators) reviewed the record of the jury trial and took testimony from Sen. Hohman, witnesses on his behalf, and his attorney. |
The committee found that the jury's verdict and the evidence presented to the committee clearly established that Sen. Hohman intentionally violated “the most fundamental of his duties, which are to safeguard the public trust and to preserve the integrity of this body.” |
Expulsion by adoption of Senate Resolution (16-4). | ||
ARIZONA |
In 1991, Sen. Carolyn Walker was one of 11 legislators indicted in a year-long undercover operation on vote selling. Sen. Walker was videotaped taking money from a paid informant for her support of legislation that would have legalized casino gambling. The legislation did not pass. |
The Senate referred the matter to the five-member Ethics Committee, which adopted rules for receiving and investigating complaints. The Senate retained special counsel to advise the Senate and the committee and to conduct a preliminary investigation into the allegations against Sen. Walker. Counsel reported his findings and recommended that the committee issue a complaint charging Sen. Walker with unethical conduct. The committee issued the complaint, held two public hearings on it, and subsequently issued a report to the Senate. |
The committee found that Sen. Walker engaged in unethical conduct in violation of Senate rules and personal and state campaign finance disclosure laws. It unanimously recommended that Sen. Walker, the majority whip, be expelled. |
Expulsion. | ||
ARKANSAS |
In 1974, Sen. Guy H. Jones was expelled after a 1972 conviction on federal tax fraud charges. |
No information. |
No information. |
Expelled. | ||
MARYLAND |
In December 1997, a series of newspaper stories raised questions about Sen. Larry Young, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Health, accepting gifts from health care companies and a state college, failing to disclose a contract with a state agency, mixing his legislative and private office budgets, and using the prestige of his office for personal gain. The legislature initiated an investigation that resulted in his expulsion in January 1998. In December 1998, he was indicted by a county grand jury on nine counts for demanding $52,000 in bribes and two computers from a health care company, extorting $74,493 and the computers from the companies and $8,000 for an aide, and filing a false state income tax return in 1995. It appears that at least some charges were felonies. A jury acquitted him of all criminal charges in September 1999. The judge had previously dismissed four counts of extortion. |
On December 3, 1997, the presiding officers referred the matter to the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, a joint committee of the Senate and the House under Maryland state law (Md. Code Ann., State Gov't., § 2-701 et seq.). They requested that the committee convene immediately to make a thorough review of allegations of improprieties on the part of Sen. Young. They asked the committee to investigate all aspects of the senator's business practices as they related to his position in the legislature and to report back before the 1998 legislative session. From the outset, the co-chairs of the committee limited their investigation and report to potential violations of public ethics laws. The committee met in closed session a total of four times. Its first meeting was on December 9, 1997. During the third session, it met to interview Sen. Young, who was represented by counsel (that hearing was closed to the public at the senator's request). Sen. Young called one witness. The committee's report appears to indicate that its last meeting, the fifth one, was not closed to the public. After a month-long investigation, the committee reported. Four days later, the Senate voted. |
The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics released its report on January 12, 1998 and made the following findings of ethical violations, among others: ● failure to disclose a contractual relationship with a state agency (Coppin State College) and conflicts of interest concerning legislation that related to Coppin State College, ● improper solicitation and acceptance of gifts, ● improper use of district office funds, and ● improper use of title for commercial purposes and use of prestige of office in connection with occupational activities. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Senate: ● remove Sen. Young immediately as a member of Senate leadership; chairman of any committee or subcommittee; and member of any standing, statutory, joint, or select committees or subcommittees; ● adopt a censure resolution; and ● consider an expulsion resolution based on its findings. |
Expulsion (by a vote of 36-10). | ||
MASSACHU-SETTS |
In 1977, Senators Joseph J.C. DiCarlo and Ronald C. MacKenzie were convicted in federal court for extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, and conspiracy to violate the Travel Act in connection with their performance as senators. Some, if not all, charges were felonies. |
The Senate referred the matter to its Committee on Ethics on the day of the conviction. The committee held two hearings, after which it determined that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted pursuant to the Senate's inherent power with respect to its members. The committee held a third hearing to determine if the convictions “were compatible with [the senators'] continued service in the Senate…” (“Report and Recommendations Concerning Senators Joseph J.C. DiCarlo and Ronald C. MacKenzie,” Senate Committee on Ethics, April 1, 1977). |
The committee stated that “the crimes with which the senators were charged and of which they have been convicted are so serious as to render one who has committed them unfit to continue to serve as a member of the Senate.” |
The committee recommended expelling DiCarlo and declaring the seat vacant even though the senator's conviction appeal was pending in federal court. The Senate expelled DiCarlo after a daylong debate. | ||
MICHIGAN |
In 2001, Sen. David Jaye was investigated for three drunk driving convictions, two alleged physical altercations with his fiancée, having sexually explicit photos on his Senate-owned computer, and alleged verbal abuse of Senate staff. Proceedings on domestic violence were pending during the legislative investigation. |
Resolution created a bipartisan committee. Jaye had been progressively disciplined by Senate leadership previously. |
Committee recommended expulsion. |
Expulsion. | ||
MICHIGAN |
In 1978, Rep. Monte Geralds was convicted of embezzling funds from a legal client before becoming a legislator (a felony). The legislature investigated while the conviction was on appeal |
No information. |
No information. |
Expulsion, by a vote of 84-20. | ||
PENNSYL-VANIA |
In 1975, Sen. Frank Mazzei was found guilty of felony extortion (see United States v. Mazzei, 521 F2d. 639). He was sentenced to time in prison on April 11, 1975. |
The matter was referred to the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee four days after the senator's sentencing. It is unclear from the legislative history whether the Senate president pro tempore appointed a select committee to investigate prior to the matter's referral to the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee. But under the current rules, the Senate's secretary-parliamentarian prepares an expulsion resolution under the sponsorship of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Official Conduct when a member is found guilty of a crime the “gravamen which relates to the member's conduct as a senator.,” and upon imposition of a sentence. On June 2, the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee reported a resolution. |
Upon a finding of guilty in federal court, the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee reported a resolution to the Senate floor recommending expulsion. |
Expulsion (unanimous vote). | ||
SOUTH CAROLINA |
In 1994, Sen. Theo Mitchell pled guilty to a misdemeanor (the crime is now a felony) for violating federal tax laws and served a 90-day sentence. The legislature investigated in 1995 after his conviction. |
The Senate debated a resolution to expel. A motion to refer the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee failed. |
N/A |
The Senate, voted 38-7 to expel Sen. Mitchell despite objections by some senators that Sen. Mitchell should have been afforded a hearing prior to taking up the motion to expel. The transcript indicates that Mitchell be "expelled from the Senate, not only for the criminal offenses to which he pled guilty on July 25, 1994, but also for the criminal wrongdoing that he admitted to at his sentencing hearing on September 29, 1994." | ||
WEST VIRGINIA |
In 1972, Sen. W. Bernard Smith was convicted on federal vote tampering charges, a felony. Smith was one of a group of five (The “Logan Five”) politicians convicted of rigging elections. Smith, who was also a former welfare commissioner, was also tried for bribery and perjury. Two bribery trials ended in a hung jury and he was found innocent of perjury. |
The Senate considered a resolution. |
N/A |
The member was expelled by a 2/3 vote pursuant to the constitution and corresponding Senate rule. | ||
CENSURE | ||||||
ALASKA |
In 1993, Sen. George Jacko used or attempted to use his position to gain sexual favors from a 17-year-old legislative page. |
The 7-member Senate subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics (5 private citizens and 2 senators) held three public hearings on five charges of ethics violations by Sen. Jacko. The committee took two days to review the testimony and evidence, including briefs on Sen. Jacko's assertion that the ethics laws are silent on prohibiting or punishing attempted acts. |
The committee found clear and convincing evidence against Sen. Jacko in three of the five charges. It also found that Sen. Jacko lied in parts of his sworn testimony before the committee and refused to accept responsibility for his actions. As a result, the committee issued a report recommending that Sen. Jacko be: 1. censured; 2. stripped of all committee chair positions and appointing authority during the remainder of his term; 3. prohibited from state-funded out-of-state travel during the remainder of his term; 4. required to complete, at his expense, a court-sanctioned Male Awareness Program; and 5. placed on probation for remainder of his term. |
Censure and the other recommended sanctions (20-0). | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1986, Rep. John Thomas was convicted in federal court on four of five felony charges of making misstatements on a Small Business Administration (SBA) application for a loan relating to private business ventures. Thomas received a suspended sentence, four years probation, and the court required restitution. |
The speaker appointed a select committee to investigate. The committee reviewed the record, heard testimony from interested constituents of Rep. Thomas, and heard presentations by the federal prosecutor and defense counsel. |
The committee considered a House Rule that suspends a member immediately, pending appeals, for a felony conviction that relates to the member's responsibility as a public officer. The committee found that this rule did not apply to Thomas because (1) the federal crime must be comparable to a state felony for this provision to apply but the comparable state crime in this instance was a misdemeanor and (2) the convictions did not relate to responsibilities as a public officer. The committee report stated that it was not clear whether the conduct was illegal because the conviction was on appeal but Thomas' conduct shows “he was inattentive to matters that ultimately led to his federal convictions and have cast a shadow on the honor of the House of Representatives.” The committee recommended censure (the least form of punishment available to the committee) because of 1. the complexity of the forms; 2. the bank's involvement in setting the loan amount; 3. a bank officer filling in some of the figures; 4. the personal financial statement was obviously incorrect and did not balance but the SBA approved it anyway; 5. the SBA and bank continued to process the loan after discovering liens that were not in the application; 6. a bank official signed the loan settlement sheets verifying that disbursements were used according to the loan authorization but the banker was not charged; 7. the federal judge commented at trial, sentencing, and by phone to the committee chairman that the case should not have been tried and he disapproved of the U.S. attorney's offer of a misdemeanor plea if Thomas provided evidence of government corruption; and 8. the only substantive evidence supporting the conviction was Thomas' statement to the FBI that he knew it was wrong to pay personal debts with SBA proceeds and he intended to use them to pay a credit card account (although he paid for personal and business expenses with this account and it was not clear whether he actually used proceeds to pay personal expenses). One member of the committee moved for expulsion but was defeated. He argued that a harsher penalty was appropriate because of Thomas' statement to the FBI and because the jury convicted of him of crimes that require willful actions. |
Censure. The House voted 109-6. A motion to substitute a reprimand (a higher penalty than censure) failed 21-95. | ||
GEORGIA |
In 1998, Sen. Ralph Abernathy III was detained at the Atlanta airport for smuggling a small amount of marijuana into the country. |
Senators Madden, Cheeks, Oliver, and Middleton introduced a proposed resolution (Senate Resolution 459) censuring Sen. Abernathy. The Senate referred the resolution to the 13-member Senate Ethics Committee. As a standing committee, the Senate Ethics Committee could not vote on a matter before it without giving the sponsor the opportunity to appear and be heard (Senate Rule 2-1.9). It is unclear whether the committee held a hearing; however, Sen. Abernathy waived any notice and hearing with respect to the actions by the committee and Senate. |
The committee returned the resolution with amendments that the Senate rejected. |
Censure. (The senator also voluntarily resigned from his position as chairman of the Interstate Cooperation Committee.) | ||
HAWAII |
In March 1989, Sen. Steven Cobb was fined $500 for soliciting an undercover policewoman. He wrote the Senate a letter of apology and told them it was an isolated incident. He was embraced by the Senate until it was later reported that he was involved in two earlier cases of soliciting prostitutes. He asked to be put on leave to attend therapy. In July 1989, his therapist said he was ready to resume his Senate duties. |
In September 1989, 17 senators met in a closed-door session to decide what action to take. The Senate president presented the senator with recommendations for sanctions and they were adopted. |
The sanctions, for the 1990 session, were: (1) remove Sen. Cobb as committee chairperson and vice chairperson, (2) remove him as a member of the Judiciary Committee, (3) require him to submit a formal letter of apology to the Senate and the people of Hawaii, (4) subject him to a "public reprimand" for soliciting prostitution, (5) tell him that any repeat incidents could result in expulsion from the Senate, and (5) reassign him to a smaller office. |
Censure. | ||
MAINE |
In 2001, Rep. John Michael “berated” two female senators during a State House argument over which committee should handle certain legislation. |
The House Ethics Committee heard testimony and made recommendations to the House. |
The committee unanimously recommended censure to the full House. |
The full House voted to censure by a vote of 137 to 8. (The resolution included a recommendation to take “corrective action to rehabilitate.” Michaels complied and apologized.) | ||
MINNESOTA |
In February 1996, several individuals claimed Rep. Jeff Bertram harassed them with anonymous calls, bullied them, and pressured them to make campaign contributions. In 1996, the legislature investigated Rep. Jeff Bertram for pressuring a businessman into giving a campaign contribution with the threat of doing business with a competitor; pressuring a store-owner to drop shoplifting charges filed against his brother, Sen. Joe Bertram; making false statements about several individuals; and engaging in other acts of intimidation, threats, and harassment. Law enforcement agencies were asked to investigate allegations of misusing state campaign funds and coercing people that surfaced in the ethics investigation. He was also later sued by a couple who said he told lies about them. The couple also received a restraining order against Bertram. |
The House Ethics Committee received a complaint. |
The committee found that Bertram harassed and intimidated critics and political opponents. The committee recommended censure by the House in open session; that he publicly admit on the House floor in open session to acts of misconduct specified in the committee report; that he apologize on the floor to the House, his constituents, and each of the victims named in the report; that he agree to undergo a psychological evaluation for anger and report the results to the speaker and the chairman and vice chairman of the Ethics Committee; and that he resign from all House committee chair or vice-chair positions and membership on legislative commissions. |
Censure by a vote of 82-21. The full House adopted the recommendations in the committee's report. Rep. Bertram consented. A minority report recommending expulsion was presented to the full House, but failed to get 2/3 of the vote, failing 68-65. Bertram did not seek re-election. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1995, Rep. Bob Johnson threatened the Public Safety commissioner when the State Patrol turned down his request to fly him to St. Paul for the funeral of a former governor. After the incident, he lost his position as assistant majority leader. Also in 1995, he had three DWI arrests in less than seven weeks. The third occurred after the legislature initiated an investigation and while he was distraught over recent events and threatening suicide in calls from his car phone. His license had been revoked at the time. He said a severe bout of depression ended 14 years of sobriety. He pled guilty to all three DWIs (they appear to all be misdemeanors). On the first, he received a fine and probation. (The later DWI arrests violated his probation and he was sentenced to 20 days of electronic home monitoring after the 1996 legislative session ended, 40 hours of community service, and a one year license suspension.) For the 3rd, he pled guilty to habitual drunk driving and refusing a breath test (a gross misdemeanor) and received a one year sentence. He spent one month in jail with his days out on work release. He also spent 28 days in an alcoholism treatment program. He was sentenced for the 2nd violation last and received (1) a one year sentence that was suspended except for 30 days in jail, (2) three years probation, (3) a $1,500 fine plus $303 in fees, and (4) a requirement to continue taking prescription medication for depression and stay in alcohol treatment. He did not seek re-election. |
The House Ethics Committee heard the matter. |
A recommendation to expel Johnson failed 5-5. By a 7-3 vote, the committee asked Johnson to resign and to run in a special election if he wanted to continue. The committee also recommended censure; that he repay to the House the portion of his salary that was paid or that may be paid while he was or may be incarcerated or under house arrest for DWI convictions; 120 hours of community service; and random tests for alcohol with results forwarded to the speaker and Johnson paying for the testing. By a 7-3 vote, the committee voted to reconsider the recommendation to expel and laid the motion on the table, if Johnson did not resign. |
Censure. The House voted 82-50. A vote on expulsion received 76 votes, short of the 90 required for a 2/3 vote. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1986, Rep. Randy Staten pled guilty to felony theft charges, admitting that he wrote 76 bad checks. The original charge of theft of over $2,500 was reduced to theft of over $250. He was sentenced to one year's probation, a 90 day jail sentence which he would serve only if he violated probation, and continued treatment. Even though the crime was a felony, he was given a misdemeanor sentence and therefore it was considered a misdemeanor. Staten said he was chemically dependent and financially irresponsible, and had completed a residential treatment program. He made restitution before criminal charges were brought. The Ethical Practices Board also found he filed late and incomplete campaign disclosure reports for four years (which could involve misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor violations). |
The speaker appointed a bipartisan four-member Select Committee on the Staten Case. The committee investigated Staten for writing $8,200 in bad checks and questionable campaign finance reporting. |
The committee voted unanimously to recommend expulsion, based on the conviction and campaign report violations. The 24 member House Rules and Legislative Investigations Committee also recommended expulsion on a voice vote. The committee rejected censure. |
Censure. An initial vote to censure failed. Then a vote to expel failed 80-52, short of the required 90 for a 2/3 vote. Then a vote to censure passed 99-31. The censure also ordered him to: donate 18% of his pay for the remainder of the year to a nonprofit chemical dependency program of his choice; perform 100 hours of volunteer service; undergo chemical dependency treatment; and, if campaign finance reporting problems continued, return all public financing money. | ||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
For seven years, House Speaker Gene Chandler held a series of corn roast galas raising $64,000 from supporters, lobbyists, and others who had business before the legislature. Chandler used the money for personal expenses such as car repairs, hotel stays, and meals. In October 2004, the Legislative Ethics Committee received a complaint and in November it issued a statement of charges and notice of hearing. In March 2005, Chandler pled guilty to a misdemeanor for failing to report the gifts. He was fined $2,000 and required to perform 100 hours of community service. The attorney general did not find any evidence that he did political favors for those who donated. The committee held its first hearing in May 2005. |
The Legislative Ethics Committee received a complaint. After reviewing the complaint, the committee conducted an extensive preliminary investigation and voted unanimously to begin formal proceedings. A formal statement of charges and notice of hearing was sent and a hearing was held. Chandler formally answered the statement of charges and appeared at the hearing to testify and present other evidence through his counsel. |
The committee voted unanimously to recommend expulsion. The committee found that Chandler violated ethics provisions by (1) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept gifts with an aggregate value over $250 while knowing or believing the givers were or were likely to be interested in matters pending at the legislature, (2) using his public position to obtain gifts with aggregate value over $250 for private benefit, and (3) disregarding the obligation to report gifts over $50 (which he acknowledged through his misdemeanor plea). The committee found that for seven years the annual corn roasts solicited and received cash from businesses, lobbyists, and individuals. They were organized by “friends” so that Chandler had income to continue in the legislature. Flyers advertising them were sent out and sometimes mentioned legislative issues. Chandler had sole discretion over how the funds were spent. He did not report the gifts except in one year. |
Censure. The vote to expel failed 189-172 following a three-hour debate. The vote to amend the report and recommend censure passed 217-143. The vote to accept the report with the sanction of censure passed 274-86. | ||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
In 1998, Rep. Roland Hemon authored legislation for the third time to impeach a probate judge involved in the case of his mother's estate. |
The Legislative Ethics Committee investigated, held hearings, and issued a report with recommendations. |
The committee recommended censure if Hemon represented that he would not introduce or sponsor similar legislation in the future. Otherwise, it recommended expulsion. |
Censure (Hemon agreed to the committee's condition). | ||
NEW MEXICO |
In 1991, Rep. Ronald G. Olguin was charged with solicitation of bribery (a felony) and demanding a bribe by a public official and two other felony counts alleging that he sought $15,000 for his consulting services in exchange for state funding. |
The House adopted rules establishing the Rules and Order of Business Committee. A subcommittee investigated, received certain evidence under a confidentiality agreement, and recommended that the committee find probable cause to move to a formal hearing. The full committee agreed and held an evidentiary hearing. The committee heard evidence, took testimony, questioned witnesses, allowed cross examination, and heard closing arguments. |
The committee found that Olguin engaged in a course of conduct while seeking to sell his consulting services that violated his public trust as a legislator. ● While agreeing to provide consulting services for a fee aimed at obtaining new program funding from a county, he also identified program needs at the state level, offered a legislative solution, and offered his assistance in obtaining that solution. ● He either included an agreement to influence the state legislative process in a proposed contract for consulting services or proposed a contract for services at the county level with free services at the state legislative level. ● His conduct was a serious breach of ethical responsibilities as a legislator. The committee voted 11-4 to censure. A minority report recommended expulsion. |
Censure. (Floor debate included a motion for expulsion that was defeated.) | ||
NORTH CAROLINA |
In 1995-6, Rep. Ken Miller was investigated for improper advances toward a page, legislative employee, and lobbyist. In July 1995, Miller allegedly made a pass at a 16 year old page. Three other women then came forward with allegations. The page's legislative sponsor requested an ethics investigation. |
A legislator requested that the House Ethics Committee investigate (a 15 member committee). The committee established its procedures and hired an attorney to investigate Miller. |
Miller submitted a letter admitting to unwanted advances as the committee prepared to take sworn statements from the alleged victims. The committee voted 11-3 against recommending expulsion but unanimously recommended censure. |
The House voted 113-1 for censure (Miller was the only vote against). He lost a primary election the week before the censure. | ||
PENNSYLVANIA |
In 1975, Sen. William Duffield admitted to misappropriating thousands of dollars from an estate for which he was executor and attorney. In October 1975, the chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered an order accepting the resignation of Sen. Duffield after the Disciplinary Board recommended a two-year suspension. The consent disbarment resulted from seven charges of professional misconduct against Sen. Duffield in his private law practice including: ● improperly converting $7,500 from a client's estate to personal use, and ● co-mingling $3,400 in funds between clients' estates. |
The Senate president pro tempore appointed a Senate Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the voluntary disbarment and advise the Senate as to what disciplinary action, if any, was warranted. The committee held a hearing on November 13, 1975 and four days later, on November 17, issued a report with its findings and recommendations. The Senate president pro tempore requested and received official documents containing specific allegations of misconduct from the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Sen. Duffield was notified of the inquiry and afforded the right to counsel. The hearing was conducted under oath and Sen. Duffield was allowed to present testimony and rebut or explain the charges against him. |
The Select Committee found, in part, that: ● converting trust funds to personal use and compounding that act by co-mingling further trust funds to restore the converted amounts constituted a grave and serious matter and conduct unbecoming any public official and ● five of the seven disciplinary charges against Sen. Duffield involved negligent acts in the conduct of his private law practice and should remain within the purview of the Bar for discipline. The committee recommended that the Senate: ● remove Sen. Duffield for the balance of his term from his standing committee chairmanship and vice chairmanship, ● bar him for the balance of his term from membership on any standing committee, and ● adopt a censure resolution. |
Censure (unanimous vote). | ||
SOUTH DAKOTA |
In 2006, an 18-year-old page contacted the attorney general alleging that Sen. Dan Sutton made sexual advances and inappropriately touched him at a motel. The attorney general investigated for possible criminal charges. By the time of censure, no charges had been brought. |
The Senate president pro tempore wrote to Sutton indicating he would refer the matter to the Senate's executive board if he did not resign within a week. The governor, in response to a request from the Senate's executive board, called the Senate into special session to investigate the allegations. In the meantime, Sutton won reelection. Sutton resigned the day after the Senate released its proposed rules for the special session, but stated that he intended to reclaim his seat in January 2007 pursuant to his reelection. The special session was cancelled. When the regular session convened, Sutton took the oath of office. The Senate voted to adopt the same rules as the previous session. It also adopted rules regarding discipline and expulsion of members as a new chapter in the rules. Sen. Sutton went to the circuit court and received an order prohibiting the Senate from holding any hearings about him under the rules. The state Supreme Court ruled that the courts had no jurisdiction to halt a legislative disciplinary process. The Senate voted 27-6 to appoint a Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion to investigate. The committee held meetings and heard testimony, including from Sutton. |
In its majority report, the Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion recommended censure, finding that the senator exercised poor judgment in inviting and permitting a serving Senate page to share his motel room and bed. Further, that allegations arising out of that poor judgment resulted in public allegations of misconduct, which, though unproved, served to bring Sen. Sutton and the honor of the Senate into public disrepute. In a minority report, three out of the nine senators on the committee dissented. They concluded that something serious involving unwanted touching of a sexual nature occurred in Sen. Sutton's motel room during the period of February 5 to February 7, 2006. In its dissent, the minority wrote, “[g]iven the serious nature of the allegations and given our belief that the evidence shows an unwanted touching of a sexual nature happened during the nights in question, we cannot agree that censure is a sufficiently serious response to what we see as the misconduct of Sen. Sutton. We believe the committee should have made a recommendation of expulsion from the South Dakota Senate.” The committee voted 6-3 to recommend censure for conduct by a senator unbecoming the Senate. |
Censure, by a vote of 32-2. A vote to expel failed 14-20. | ||
UTAH |
In 1991, Rep. Dionne Halverson was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting. |
Pursuant to JR-16-04, the House Ethics Committee subsequently made a preliminary inquiry. It is unclear whether Halverson waived the disciplinary hearing which would have required appointment of a special prosecutor. |
The House Ethics Committee recommended expulsion. |
The full House voted against expulsion by a narrow margin (2 votes). Halverson was censured and subsequently resigned. | ||
VIRGINIA |
In 1987, Senator Peter Babalas was censured for casting votes in violation of Senate conflict of interest rules. Babalas had earlier successfully defended himself against two counts of a criminal misdemeanor for alleged violations of state conflict of interest laws. One count was dismissed and Babalas was acquitted on the second count. |
The Privileges and Elections committee recommended censure by a 12-3 vote. The Senate Rules Committee, by a 9-5 vote with Babalas (the chairman of the committee) abstaining, then approved a resolution of censure of Babalas for unethical conduct. |
Censure. The resolution prescribing that Babalas be censured was approved by the whole Senate by a vote of 25-14. | |||
REPRIMAND | ||||||
FLORIDA |
In 1997, the Ethics Commission found that Rep. Alzo J. Reddick violated constitutional provisions on ethics through financial disclosure violations in 21 separate instances. |
The speaker received a final order and public report from the Ethics Commission and appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. |
In a consent decree, Reddick stipulated to findings of fact that in six years he committed various violations including failing to report a loan, underreporting a loan, failing to report the value of stock, overestimating the value of stock, failing to report certain income, not filing the address and amount of sources of income, and failing to accurately reporting his net worth. The committee's proposed order stated that Reddick apologizes for “any unintentional adverse effect his actions may have brought” on the House. Because there was no evidence of use of office for personal gain or that the actions impacted legislative duties, the committee proposed and Reddick accepted the penalty of a reprimand. |
Reprimand. The House accepted the consent decree. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1992, Rep. Michael E. Langton was investigated for representing others before a state agency for compensation and seeking a benefit inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties. |
The speaker received a complaint and public report from the Ethics Commission. He appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. |
In a consent decree between Langton and the committee, Langton waived a hearing on the violations and penalty, stipulated to facts, and agreed to a penalty. The findings included the following. ● Langton was a consultant to cities and counties applying for Department of Community Affairs for Community Development Block Grant funds before and after his election. ● He asked the Ethics Commission for an opinion whether he could continue this consulting and was informed that he could as long as he did not represent anyone personally for compensation before an agency. ● The House Community Affairs Committee chair asked Langton to work on changes to the grant program and he did so while continuing to consult with cities and counties who applied for grants. ● Under new legislation, the department enacted a rule for application criteria. When it appeared that this interpretation was contrary to the legislative intent, Langton contacted the department to clarify the interpretation. ● Langton recognized that his contact with the department reflected adversely on him and the House. Such conduct was prohibited when it benefited a member's client or business interest. ● On behalf of his consulting company, Langton phoned a department employee to express concerns about misstated facts in monitoring reports the employee prepared. The committee's proposed order stated that contacting the employee was a violation and he was admonished to prevent recurrences. Langton agreed that he should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and he apologized for “any unintentional adverse effect his actions may have brought” on the House. The committee recommended a reprimand. |
Reprimand. The House voted 116-0 in favor. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1980, Rep. Gene Flinn was investigated for sexual discrimination and sexual harassment of two female aides and using aides for non-legislative duties. |
The speaker appointed a select committee to investigate. The committee took depositions, conducted hearings, and gave Rep. Flinn an opportunity to appear and give testimony and evidence. |
The committee found that Flinn violated House rules and a state statute. It recommended a reprimand. |
The House adopted a resolution to reprimand Flinn by a vote of 109-4. Two legislators placed remarks in the journal arguing that expulsion was appropriate. | ||
GEORGIA |
In 2000, Rep. Arnold Ragas failed to file mandatory campaign finance reports indicating his person wealth and campaign contributions received between 1996 and 2000. He also ignored the $10,600 in fines the State Ethics Commission imposed for the violations. |
Representative Snow introduced a proposed resolution (House Resolution 747) reprimanding Rep. Ragas. The House referred the resolution to the Rules Committee. It was subsequently withdrawn from that committee and referred to the House Ethics Committee. As a standing committee, the House Ethics Committee could not vote on a matter before it without giving the sponsor the opportunity to appear and be heard. It is unclear whether the committee held hearings. |
After one meeting, the committee voted unanimously to recommend a reprimand and an order to pay the $10,600 fine. |
Reprimand (161-3). | ||
GEORGIA |
In 1993, Rep. Jimmy Benefield displayed a sex toy in the House chamber where it was allegedly showed to young pages. Benefield acknowledged bringing the toy into the chamber but denied intentionally showing it to children. A Georgia Bureau of Investigation report found insufficient evidence that criminal laws were violated. As a result, Benefield was never charged with a crime. |
Rep. Posten filed an ethics complaint on behalf of a 14-year-old page who claimed a legislator showed him the toy and Benefield laughed. The House referred the complaint to the 11-member House Ethics Committee, which hired a prosecutor and held a hearing over two days. House pages, the mother of the 14-year-old, a lobbyist, and three house members testified. The hearings were open to the public, except when the pages testified. The committee limited its questions of Benefield to his role in the incident. It voted not to look into claims by two female lobbyists that Benefield showed them the toy. |
The committee recommended a reprimand even though reprimand was not among the committee's official disciplinary options as spelled out in the state constitution. The committee's options were no action, censure, or expulsion. |
Reprimand (129-25). | ||
IDAHO |
In 1990, Representative Ray Infanger, in a letter to the director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Services, threatened the agency's funding if the director did not grant Infanger's son an electrical contracting license. |
The speaker appointed a six-member bipartisan committee to (1) review the letter of accusation written by the director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Services; (2) interview Rep. Infanger, the director, and one other knowledgeable person; and (3) report its findings and recommendations. |
The committee found that a serious lack of judgment left the impression that Infanger used his position, contrary to public interest, to benefit a member of his family. Recommended a reprimand. |
Reprimand. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1999, a conflict of interest complaint was filed against Sen. Dallas Sams. In his job as a consultant, the senator accepted a state contract that was related to legislation he authored. He received a $12,500 consulting payment from the University of Minnesota. |
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct heard the matter. |
The subcommittee reported that Sen. Sams covered up a payment for consulting work. The payment was legal but the coverup was unethical. The subcommittee recommended a reprimand, including a public apology and removal as a member and vice-chair of the Human Resources Finance Committee. |
Reprimand, including a public apology to the Senate, his constituents, and the public; and removal as a member and vice-chair of the Human Resources Finance Committee. | ||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
In 1994, Rep. Roland Hemon authored legislation to impeach a probate judge involved in the case of his mother's estate. |
The Legislative Ethics Committee investigated, held hearings, and issued a report with recommendations. |
The committee recommended a reprimand. |
Reprimand. | ||
ADMONISHMENT | ||||||
FLORIDA |
In 2000, Rep. Alzo J. Reddick, Sr. failed to timely file a financial disclosure form for 1998. |
The speaker received a copy of a stipulation of fact and recommended order from the Ethics Commission and appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. The Ethics Committee had not approved the stipulation and could not do so before the end of the legislative session. Reddick was not seeking re-election but asked the House to find a violation and impose a penalty. |
In a consent decree, the committee stated that because the violation was inadvertent, a letter of admonishment from the speaker was an appropriate penalty. In addition, Reddick agreed to apologize to the House and the public and make a $500 contribution to a homeless shelter. |
Admonishment. The House accepted the consent decree and the speaker's letter of admonishment was printed in the journal. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 2000, Rep. Gustavo Barreiro failed to report a liability of more than $1,000 on his disclosure of financial interests that he filed when qualifying to run for the House. |
The speaker received a final order and public report from the Ethics Commission and appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. |
In a consent decree, the parties accepted the Ethics Committee's findings and agreed there was no evidence the violation was willful or intentional. The committee recommended a letter of admonishment from the speaker and Barreiro agreed to apologize to the House and the public and contribute $500 to a homeless shelter. The committee also recommended clarifying the law. |
Admonishment. The House accepted the consent decree and the speaker's letter of admonishment was printed in the journal. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1994, Rep. John Thrasher was investigated for violating the statutes on representing others before a state agency for compensation. |
The speaker received a complaint and public report from the Ethics Commission and appointed a select committee to investigate. |
In a consent decree entered into between Thrasher and the committee, Thrasher waived a hearing on the violations and penalty, stipulated to facts, and agreed to a penalty. The findings included the following. ● As general counsel for the Florida Medical Association, he personally appeared on the association's behalf before a subcommittee of the Board of Medicine of the Department of Professional Regulation on a rule relating to surgery in doctors' offices. ● Before his appearance, he had a phone conversation with a longtime friend who chaired the subcommittee and invited Thrasher to appear and address the rule. Thrasher had previously received a general notice about the meeting. ● There was no indication that the appearance was intended to misuse his position to improperly influence a state agency, nothing indicated that his status was relevant to his appearance, and it was clear from the transcript that he appeared as a representative of the association. ● Thrasher acknowledged his appearance was an unintentional violation of the constitution, statutes, and House Rules. The committee's proposed order stated that the appearance before the subcommittee was a violation and he was admonished to prevent recurrences. He agreed that he should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and he apologized for “any unintentional adverse effect his actions may have brought” on the House. The committee recommended admonishment by the speaker. |
The House adopted the report and a letter of admonishment from the speaker was printed in the journal. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1991, Rep. Frederick Lippman was investigated for (1) failing to properly supervise staff as chair of the Committee on Regulatory Reform from 1983 to 1986, (2) violating the statute that restricts outside employment of a full-time staff employee, and (3) improper behavior with a House staff member from 1983 to 1986. A county grand jury also issued a report relating to allegations of sexual harassment by a former staff member. |
The speaker appointed a select committee to investigate. |
The committee recommended admonishment. It also recommended procedural changes and training. |
The speaker issued a letter admonishing Lippman (a copy was printed in the journal). The speaker also removed Lippman as majority leader. | ||
APOLOGY (MAY INCLUDE OTHER SANCTIONS) | ||||||
MINNESOTA |
In 2006, Sen. Dean Johnson made comments at a private meeting concerning alleged conversations he had with members of the state Supreme Court relating to the court's possible action on the state's Defense of Marriage Act. A tape of the comments surfaced. |
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct (a subcommittee of the Rules and Administration Committee) heard the matter. |
The committee dismissed the complaint but voted unanimously to require a public apology to the Senate and a written apology to the group that held the meeting where the comments were made. |
Required to apologize on the Senate Floor and to those at the meeting. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 2004, Sen. Michael Jungbauer was accused of performing campaign activities from his Senate office. He sent a Senate e-mail to 1,700 people forwarding a media advisory about a press conference whose organizers were seeking to defeat senators of a particular party if they did not pass a same-sex marriage ban constitutional amendment. Senate rules prohibit use of equipment for commercial purposes or a political campaign. |
A senator filed a complaint and the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct heard the matter. |
The committee voted unanimously to require a written apology. |
Required a written apology to each member of the Senate and the complaint was dismissed upon delivery of apologies. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1994 and 1996, Sen. Sam Solon was investigated for providing the Senate's long-distance access code to his ex-wife. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge relating to the use of the phone account in 1992 and 1993. |
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical conduct heard the matter. |
The committee recommended voluntary resignation as chair of the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee as an appropriate disciplinary action; that he be removed from membership on the Committee on Rules and Administration; that he make restitution to the Senate for the cost of the calls; that he apologize to the Senate in open session; and that the reprimand of March 24, 1994 (for giving telephone access code to lobbyists) be reaffirmed. |
The Senate adopted the report by a vote of 57-6, after voting down an amendment seeking his resignation 17-48. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1995, Sen. Kevin Chandler was involved in a domestic assault with his estranged wife outside a bar. His wife did not press charges. The police investigated and Chandler asked them to charge him and stated he would plead guilty to 5th degree assault (a misdemeanor). He was charged with that crime and two counts of disorderly conduct (all misdemeanors). In September 1995, he pled guilty to 5th degree assault for slapping his estranged wife and the other charges were dropped. He was placed on probation for one year and fined $210. In 1996, the legislature investigated. He did not seek re-election. |
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct heard the matter. |
The subcommittee reported that Sen. Chandler's decision to voluntary resign his leadership positions in the Senate was appropriate and that he apologize to the Senate in open session. |
By a vote of 63-0, the Senate adopted the subcommittee's report: that Sen. Chandler's decision to voluntary resign his leadership positions in the Senate was appropriate and that he apologize to the Senate in open session. | ||
OHIO |
In January 1996, Rep. Michael A. Fox accepted an airline ticket and lodging from a lobbyist. Fox said he thought he had repaid the lobbyist for the ticket and he thought staying at the home owned by the lobbyist was not a gift that had to be reported. |
In 1997, the legislative inspector general investigated and presented findings to the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. |
The committee recommended that Fox be removed as chairman of the Education Committee and apologize. |
The House voted 89-7 and the Senate voted 31-0 to remove Fox as chairman of the Education Committee and require him to apologize. | ||
OTHER SANCTIONS | ||||||
INDIANA |
In September 1997, Sen. Steven Johnson had an affair with his Senate intern. |
The Senate Committee on Legislative Ethics considered a complaint filed by Sen. Kent Adams. Sen. Johnson acknowledged a “moral and ethical” failure and apologized to the Senate. |
The committee found Sen. Johnson to be immoral and unethical “in contradiction to the high moral and ethical standards expected of members of the Indiana State Senate under the Rules of the Senate.” It recommended that Sen. Johnson (1) be removed as a committee chairman, (2) have his assigned seat on the Senate floor relocated to a less prominent place, and (3) receive no further punishment. |
Removed as Senate committee chair and assigned Senate seat located in a less prominent position. | ||
OHIO |
In 2006, Sen. Jeffry Armbruster was investigated after requesting a workers' compensation rate discount for his business. Term limits barred him from seeking reelection. The ethics committee held hearing after Armbruster left office. |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee investigated (a bipartisan 12 member committee). The committee served him with a complaint in December 2006. Based on a preliminary investigation, he was accused of meeting with Bureau of Workers' Compensation officials at his legislative office to discuss the premium rate of his company. In 2007, after he left office, the committee held formal hearings with the legislative inspector general acting similar to a prosecutor. |
The committee found that he violated a prohibition against using his position to represent his personal business interests before a state agency. |
The matter was referred to the county prosecutor. | ||
OHIO |
In 2005, Reps. Jim Raussen, Diana M. Fessler, and Michelle G. Schneider failed to disclose gifts of dinner and pro football tickets on disclosure forms. |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee investigated. |
The committee cleared them of any “wrongful intent” but required them to reimburse the costs to the lobbyist and attend one hour of ethic training. |
Reimbursement of costs and training. | ||
ON-GOING | ||||||
ALABAMA |
In 2007, Sen. Charles Bishop punched Sen. Lowell Barron on the Senate floor. |
The Senate president appointed a five-member bipartisan Senate Ethics and Conduct Committee to review the complaint. |
The committee hired an attorney to assist it in the review. |
Investigation is on-going. | ||
NORTH CAROLINA |
In 2007, an investigation of Rep. Thomas Wright by the state Board of Elections discovered evidence that Wright did not report hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and he reportedly used a letter awarding a bogus grant to secure a bank loan for a foundation he controlled. In August, prosecutors stated that they hoped to finish their investigation by October 1. A search warrant for bank records indicated a suspicion of obtaining property by false pretences. The Board of Elections suspended Wright's reelection campaign for failing to file the required campaign disclosure report for the first six months of 2007. |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee began an investigation. |
N/A |
Committee investigation is not yet complete. | ||
RESIGNATION | ||||||
ARKANSAS |
In 1999, Sen. Nick Wilson was convicted in federal court on felony charges of conspiring to evade taxes on $325,000. The case involved “washing” checks that were payments from a real estate agent. The agent testified that he split his commission after Wilson tipped him off that a agency might buy a downtown bank building. He also faced a 133-count racketeering indictment as “kingpin” of a corrupt organization that skimmed nearly $2 million from an assortment of state programs through kickbacks and contracts to friends and allies. |
Under one provision of the state constitution, no one convicted of an “infamous crime” is eligible to serve in the General Assembly. Another provision gives each house the power to expel a member. A majority of members signed a petition to request a hearing on Wilson, as required by the rules. 28 of 35 senators signed the petition. |
N/A |
Resigned. Wilson submitted a letter announcing his resignation at a future date and the Senate president pro tem cancelled a meeting on expulsion. Other criminal charges were later dropped by prosecutors in exchange for Wilson's testimony. | ||
CALIFORNIA |
In 1994, Sen. Frank Hill was one of several legislators ensnared in an FBI sting operation focused on legislative corruption. He was convicted of extortion, conspiracy, and money laundering after accepting $25,000 in exchange for his support on Louisiana shrimp boat legislation. He was sentenced to 46 months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $2,500. At least some convictions were felonies. |
A demand was made on the Senate floor for Hill's expulsion. The Rules Committee put aside consideration after receiving Hill's resignation letter, but he did not set a resignation date |
The 5-member Rules Committee later voted 4-0 to expel Hill. One member abstained. |
Resignation (before vote on resolution). | ||
COLORADO |
In 2006, Sen. Deanna Hanna allegedly requested a $1,400 campaign contribution as a “reparations request” from a group that backed her election opponent. |
A complaint initiated the process calling for an inquiry. An ethics committee of three Democrats and two Republicans was appointed (under Senate Rule 43). |
N/A |
Hanna resigned while the committee was investigating. | ||
DELAWARE |
In 2007, Rep. John Atkins assaulted his wife after using his legislative position to avoid a drunk driving arrest. He was stopped by police after the pickup truck he was driving was seen speeding and drifting. He was not cited or arrested despite a preliminary breath test of 0.14 BAC. He pled guilty to offensive touching (a misdemeanor) for supposedly grabbing his wife's arm during a fight and was sentenced to probation and ordered to complete domestic violence and anger management counseling. |
The House Ethics Committee, a standing committee established by House Rules, investigated and made recommendations. The committee consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats. The committee determined the matter merited further inquiry and staff performed a preliminary inquiry. |
Committee staffers made the following findings. ● Atkins filed a misleading affidavit with the committee stating that he presented his legislative ID card after police asked for it. He later admitted that he showed it without being asked and repeatedly reminded officers about being a legislator to attempt to be treated leniently. ● The police officer told Atkins and his wife to get a ride home and friends drove them part of the way before Atkins got into his truck to drive home. ● Another police officer saw Atkins run a stop sign but did not stop him because he recognized the vehicle which had legislative plates. ● Police shortly after responded to a 911 hang-up call at the Atkins home. After his arrest based on a domestic dispute, he expressed his concern about the press since the election was in 10 days. He made requests to speak to the police chief. ● Atkins was sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to offensive touching for supposedly grabbing his wife's arm during a fight. Staff found that the fight involved greater physical contact than described in the police complaint. The committee unanimously found that Atkins violated House rules and brought the chamber into “disrepute” by using his position in an effort to be treated leniently during the traffic stop and ensuing events culminating in his arrest. In voting to censure, the committee recommended he surrender his legislative identification car and license tag, pay a $550 fine, forego any committee chairmanships, undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, and complete court-ordered domestic violence counseling. |
Resignation (before scheduled House debate on a censure resolution). | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1988, Rep. Donald George Gaffney was investigated regarding his previous position as Jacksonville City councilman and a rezoning petition before the council. ● He was charged with bribery and grand theft days before his election in 1986. ● A federal grand jury returned a 23-count indictment on extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, and mail fraud in February 1987. ● After the 1987 session ended, he was convicted of conspiracy, extortion, and attempted extortion and acquitted of five extortion and five attempted extortion charges. Under House Rules, he was suspended from the House pending appeal or the end of his term. ● In December, a federal judge vacated the verdicts on rumors of jury tampering and Gaffney was reinstated pending a new trial. ● In January 1988, a federal grand jury returned a 21-count indictment that included new charges. |
The speaker appointed a select committee to investigate. |
No information. |
Resigned, effective the day before the start of the 1988 session. Gaffney was later convicted and sentenced to prison for mail fraud. | ||
GEORGIA |
In 1999, Sen. Diana Harvey Johnson was convicted of five counts of federal mail fraud for funneling an estimated $80,000 of state tourism funds to her own consulting business. She was sentenced to 41 months in prison, fined $7,500, and ordered to pay $21,600 in restitution. |
The governor impaneled a 3-member review committee after Sen Johnson was indicted. |
The committee concluded that Sen. Johnson's indictment impaired her ability to serve her constituents. |
The governor suspended Sen. Johnson with pay. She resigned her seat after a federal judge suggested he would not free her on bond while appealing her conviction unless she gave up her seat. | ||
IDAHO |
In 2005, Sen. Jack Noble introduced legislation to change the method of measurement of the required distance between a liquor store and a school after he and his wife were denied a license to sell liquor from their store. |
Pursuant to Senate Rule 53, a six-member bipartisan Ethics Committee appointed by the Senate president pro tempore held four public hearings. |
The committee found that the senator gave false or deceptive information to the Senate State Affairs Committee about the origin of the legislation and his potential benefit. Sen. Noble, while under oath, testified before the committee twice. It recommended that the senator be censured and stripped of any leadership responsibilities. |
Resignation. | ||
MAINE |
In 1987, Rep. Donald Sproul was convicted of misdemeanor ballot tampering. |
After conviction, adopted a resolution relating to the censure or expulsion of Sproul. Inquiry by House Committee on Elections with a report to the full House. Adopted a resolution establishing procedures. Resolution appointed special counsel and required the committee to adopt any necessary rules and procedures. |
N/A |
Resignation (before committee met). | ||
MASSACHUSETTS |
In 1977, Senators Joseph J.C. DiCarlo and Ronald C. MacKenzie were convicted in federal court for extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, and conspiracy to violate the Travel Act in connection with their performance as senators. Some, if not all, charges were felonies. |
The Senate referred the matter to its Committee on Ethics on the day of the conviction. The committee held two hearings, after which it determined that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted pursuant to the Senate's inherent power with respect to its members. The committee held a third hearing to determine if the convictions “were compatible with [the senators'] continued service in the Senate…” (“Report and Recommendations Concerning Senators Joseph J.C. DiCarlo and Ronald C. MacKenzie,” Senate Committee on Ethics, April 1, 1977). |
The committee stated that “the crimes with which the senators were charged and of which they have been convicted are so serious as to render one who has committed them unfit to continue to serve as a member of the Senate.” |
MacKenzie resigned at the third hearing. | ||
MICHIGAN |
In 1998, Sen. Henry Stallings employed a state worker in his art gallery and used public funds to pay the person. He was originally charged with a felony but, after the legislative investigation began, he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of taking less than $100 under false pretenses. |
Select committee investigated. |
Committee unanimously recommended expulsion. |
Resignation (prior to vote on expulsion). | ||
MINNESOTA |
In September 1995, Sen. Joe Bertram was arrested and convicted for shoplifting a $90 leather vest (a petty misdemeanor). He was fined $150. In 1996, the legislature investigated Bertram for shoplifting the vest and offering $1,000 to the store owner to not file criminal charges. After his resignation, he was (1) arrested on another shoplifting charge and (2) charged in April 1996 with two felony counts of bribery for offering money to the store owner not to file charges. |
Two senators filed a complaint with the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct. |
N/A |
Resignation (before the committee voted). | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1990, Rep. Jeff Conway, a financial planner, was indicted for diverting about $90,000 of customers' money to his personal use. He was charged with 30 felony counts of diverting money from 15 couples or individuals over several months. He was suspended from the job and then resigned. He relinquished his broker's and insurance agent's licenses after the state Commerce Department found he mishandled funds. He allegedly invested money for a client after he resigned from his job. After he resigned from the House, he pled guilty to charges that were consolidated into four counts. He was sentenced to eight months in prison, 10 years probation, 500 hours of community service, a $5,000 fine, and $50,342 restitution. The judge stayed a sentence of just under nine years in prison. |
A complaint was filed with the House Ethics Committee. |
The committee found probable cause that Conway engaged in misconduct. |
Resignation (the day before his scheduled appearance before the committee). | ||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
In 2004, Rep. John Kerns was investigated for writing bad checks with “State of New Hampshire” written on them, using his title to get a parking space reserved for school officials, and threatening officials when told to stop parking there. After the legislative investigation began he was charged with four counts of passing bad checks. He went to court to attempt to stop the committee investigation. He also told the press that (1) he had a serious neurological illness that sometimes incapacitated him and (2) he and a family member were sex crime victims. After his resignation, he pled guilty to writing bad checks. The judge suspended a $500 fine and ordered Kerns to pay $421 in restitution, perform 152 hours of community service, apologize, and drop a lawsuit against police. |
The Legislative Ethics Committee received complaints, investigated, initiated formal proceedings, held hearings, and issued a report with recommendations. |
The committee voted unanimously for expulsion. |
Resignation (before House action). | ||
NEW YORK |
From 1983 to 1986, Queens County Democratic Organization Secretary Richard Rubin placed no-show employees on the legislative payroll of Assemblywoman Gerdi E. Lipschutz. She was granted immunity in criminal proceeding. |
In 1987, the Committee on Ethics conducted a five-week investigation that included testimony given in Rubin's trial in which he was found guilty of mail-fraud in that he caused a no-show secretary to be placed on the assemblywoman's payroll. The committee reviewed the state constitution, the proceedings of two constitutional conventions, and constitutional case law to determine if Article 3, Sections 7 and 9 authorize the Assembly to expel a member. |
The committee found Lipschutz guilty of (1) falsely certifying personal service vouchers, (2) approving the hiring of a “no-show” employee knowing that the employee did not perform any official duties, and (3) committing the acts to obtain a political benefit. Assemblywoman Lipschutz cooperated with the U.S. Attorney in the Rubin trial and provided essential testimony after receiving a grant of immunity. The committee found that no member has ever been expelled and that the Assembly does not have the constitutional authority to expel a member. The committee recommended that (1) she resign, (2) the Assembly remove her committee chairmanships, (3) she forfeit any rights or privileges of seniority, (4) the Assembly censure her, and (5) the state amend the constitution to authorize expulsion. |
Resigned (after the committee made its recommendations). | ||
NORTH CAROLINA |
In 1985, a committee investigation of Sen. John Jordan led to a criminal investigation for bribery and extortion. He later pled guilty to extortion, bribery, and official misconduct. He was sentenced to a two year suspended sentence, two years probation, and a $2,000 fine. |
No information. |
No information. |
Resigned after pleading guilty. | ||
OHIO |
In March 1998, Sen. Jeff Johnson was indicted by a federal grand jury on felony corruption charges: four counts of violating the federal Hobbs Act which prohibits officials from using their office to extort money and two counts of wire fraud. The federal charges involved pressuring inner-city grocers for campaign contributions in exchange for help in obtaining government licenses for nutrition and food stamp programs and to sell liquor and lottery tickets. In November 1998, he was convicted on three charges. He resigned in December. In February 1999 he was sentenced to 15 months in prison, at least 250 hours of community service |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee investigated. |
The committee did not complete its investigation. |
Resigned. | ||
SOUTH CAROLINA |
In 1982, Sen. Eugene Carmichael was sentenced on a federal felony conviction to ten years in prison for conspiracy to buy votes, obstruction of justice, and vote buying. |
The Senate Ethics Committee investigated. |
The Senate Ethics Committee found that he committed official misconduct |
The Senate refused 24-21 to expel. At the time of the vote, he was appealing his conviction. He lost his appeal and ultimately resigned. | ||
TENNESSEE |
In 2005, Sen. John Ford was investigated on charges including whether he resided outside his district, used campaign funds for his daughter's wedding, received consulting fees to help companies get state business, and failed to disclose his sources of income as required by Senate rules. (Other entities also investigated misconduct by Ford, including the FBI in a bribery scandal called Operation Tennessee Waltz.) |
A complaint was filed with the Senate's Ethics Committee (a standing committee). The committee issued a subpoena and a subcommittee investigated and found probable cause for the full committee to investigate the issue of failing to disclose income. The full committee voted to bring in a special counsel to expand its investigation regarding consulting fees and deals. The special counsel presented a report of the investigation. The committee was preparing a six-count charge for ethical violations when Ford resigned. |
Ford resigned before the committee issued its report. |
Resigned (before the committee reported but after the FBI arrested him for bribery and other charges). | ||
TEXAS |
In 1957, Rep. Cox was indicted for consenting to accept a bribe. He was censured by a House committee but the censure came after the member had resigned. |
An investigatory committee was appointed pursuant to a resolution. |
The committee recommended that the entire House censure Rep. Cox but take no other action in view of the fact that he had already resigned. The committee vote appears to have been 9-0. |
Resigned. It is unclear whether the entire House ever acted on censure. | ||
NO ACTION/DISMISSAL | ||||||
ALASKA |
In 1989, Sen. Paul Fischer was accused of taking personal trips at state expense. |
The 6-member Senate subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics investigated the complaint. |
The committee found an “inference of improper conduct” in Sen. Fischer's undocumented travel reimbursements. In testimony to the committee, Fischer stated that he was quite sure he discussed legislative business during brief airport layovers but neither he nor his aide could remember the dates or where the meeting took place. The committee recommended no action—it was unwilling to second-guess Fischer even though his explanation was not “clear and convincing.” |
No action. | ||
ALASKA |
In 1983, Sen. Al Adams allegedly used forged documents and his office to arrange jobs for a subcontractor. In return the subcontractor agreed to give Adams a $100,000 cash advance and ultimately paid him $772,668 over 2.5 years. The contractor also said he made a $12,000 loan to Sen. Adams in 1981 that was not repaid and not reported on Adams conflict of interest form. |
The 6-member Senate subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics (3 private citizens and 3 senators) deliberated privately. |
After reviewing the allegations, the committee dismissed the complaint because the allegations stemmed from actions that occurred either before the applicable ethics law was in place or outside the law's two-year statute of limitations. |
No action | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1996, Rep. Marvin Couch failed to report one liability of more than $1,000 on his 1992 financial disclosure form and two liabilities of more than $1,000 on his 1993 form. |
The speaker received a final order and public report from the Ethics Commission and appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. |
In a consent decree, the parties (1) accepted the Ethics Commission's findings on violations, (2) found no evidence that the violations were willful or intentional, and (3) found that the Ethics Commission became aware of the debt because Couch revealed it in an amended disclosure in 1993. Because of the inadvertent nature of the violations, the parties agreed that no additional penalty was warranted. |
No action. | ||
FLORIDA |
In 1995, Rep. Evelyn J. Lynn was investigated for failing to report certain assets and income on various financial disclosure forms over a four year period. |
The speaker received a complaint and public report from the Ethics Commission and appointed a Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate. |
In a consent decree, the parties agreed that the Ethics Commission already found a violation and imposed a penalty and the House should take no action. They also recommended that the legislature consider clarifying jurisdiction over a member's conduct before taking office. |
No action. | ||
GEORGIA |
In 1999, Reps. Nan Orrock and Michele Henson were alleged to have been improperly paid for work they performed for the Scott Fund, a non-profit arm of the Georgia Commission on the Holocaust. Orrock was paid $12,000 under a contract with the Scott Fund and Henson received less than $9,000 for fund raising, reimbursement for a trip, and picture framing. |
Rep. Bob Irvin filed a complaint after a state auditor's report reported that the Holocaust Commission and the Scott Fund used loose accounting practices and mingled their funds. The complaint was referred to the House Ethics Committee. |
The committee's investigation revealed no fraud or other wrongdoing because no state appropriated money was used to pay the legislators. All payments to Orrock and Henson came from privately raised money in the Scott Fund. The committee recommended no action. |
No action. | ||
IDAHO |
In 1990, Sen. John Peavey took another senator's outgoing mail from the sergeant at arm's desk to determine if the mail volume limit was exceeded. |
A six-member special committee determined facts, reached conclusions, and reported recommendations. |
The committee found that the senator did not violate any Senate rules; however, his conduct showed a lack of good judgment. Unanimously recommended no formal action and an apology. |
No formal action. | ||
IOWA |
In 2006, Sen. Stewart Iverson took a position with a political action committee before his term ended. |
The Senate Ethics Committee, a standing committee, received a complaint. |
Before the committee took any action, Iverson returned his pay and quit the job. The committee dismissed the complaint. |
None. | ||
IOWA |
In 2001, a complaint against Sen. Mike Sexton alleged conflict of interest for (1) sitting in on an environmental protection commission meeting regarding a fine of his employer and (2) quashing legislation as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee to prevent new regulations that would affect his employer. |
The Senate Ethics Committee received a complaint. |
The committee dismissed the complaint but required senators to ask for an ethics ruling in the future before taking jobs that might be a conflict of interest. |
None | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 2003, Rep. Arlon Lindner made controversial statements about gays in the Holocaust and AIDS in Africa. |
Eight representatives filed a complaint and the House Ethics Committee (a bipartisan standing committee) heard the matter. |
The committee failed to find probable cause for a violation by a 2-2 vote. |
None. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 2001, a conflict of interest complaint was filed against Rep. Jim Abeler based on his vote on a funding measure dealing with charter school leases. He owned and leased a building to a charter school at the time. |
The House Ethics Committee heard the matter. |
The complaint was dismissed. |
None. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1996, Sen. Florian Chmielewski was accused of abusing Senate phone privileges. Previously, in December 1995, he pled guilty to misconduct of a public officer, a gross misdemeanor (it is unclear whether he faced other charges). He was accused of letting family and friends use his Senate phone access code for more than $3,800 in personal long distance calls. He was sentenced to two years probation and 100 hours of community service. |
A senator filed a complaint with the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct. |
The sub-committee recommended removal from two committees; no use of the Senate phone code; no reimbursement for lodging expenses outside his district; and loss of seniority. |
None. The Ethics Committee recommendations had to be approved by the Senate Rules Committee which had no scheduled meetings until the following year. The recommendations expired and the senator was defeated in a primary election. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1996, Sen. LeRoy Stumpf requested an investigation of a possible conflict of interest relating to consultant contract. A newspaper article reported that Stumpf sponsored a bill in 1994 that provided $50,000 to a coalition of six counties to control beavers whose dams caused floods. Two weeks after the bill became law, he was hired as a consultant by the Red Lake Watershed District, which was picked by the counties to administer the program. He was paid $14,000, with the money coming from the district's account which is derived from property taxes. |
Stumpf requested that the Senate ethics subcommittee (a bipartisan subcommittee) review the situation. |
The Special Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct unanimously found that it was not a conflict of interest. The subcommittee report stated that no money appropriated as a result of Stumpf's legislative work was used directly or indirectly to pay him and he took reasonable steps to avoid a conflict of interest, such as consulting Senate counsel on the matter. It also found no evidence that Stumpf discussed the job while the bill was pending. |
None. | ||
MINNESOTA |
In 1996, Rep. Tom Workman violated House Rules by releasing confidential documents and discussing actions of a closed House Ethics Committee hearing. |
A complaint was filed with the House Ethics Committee. |
N/A |
None. The complaint was withdrawn and the ethics committee opened its hearing to the public. | ||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
In 1996, Rep. Roland Hemon authored legislation for the second time to impeach a probate judge involved in the case of his mother's estate. |
The Legislative Ethics Committee investigated, held hearings, and issued a report with recommendations. |
The committee recommended censure. |
None (the House was not in session and the recommendation was not considered). | ||
NEW JERSEY |
Sen. Bryant is currently under federal felony indictment for fraud and corruption. |
The Ethics Committee announced an investigation in November 2006 but has taken no action to date. |
N/A |
N/A | ||
OHIO |
In 2005, Sen. Ray Miller was investigated for having his aide work for his nonprofit organization while on state time. The legislative inspector general referred evidence of using state personnel and equipment for private business to the county prosecutor. The prosecutor did not pursue charges. |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee investigated. |
The committee required a letter of apology and $936 restitution, which covered the aide's salary for the time she worked for the private organization. |
N/A | ||
OHIO |
In 2005, Rep. Jim Aslanides was investigated for failing to disclose his real estate holdings for five years. According to a letter from his attorney, he thought that because a city was leasing the land, he had relinquished control and did not have to disclose it. |
The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee investigated. |
The committee found no violation. |
N/A | ||
UTAH |
In 1998, Rep. Melvin Brown was offered a position by a lobbyist. |
Pursuant to JR-16-04, the Ethics Committee made an inquiry into the matter. It is unclear whether they determined initially that further investigation was unwarranted or whether, after the preliminary inquiry, determined the charges were unfounded. |
No recommendation of disciplinary action by the House Ethics Committee. |
N/A | ||
UTAH |
In 1986, Sen. Paul Rogers was accused of applying undue pressure on the executive branch on a constituent's behalf. |
Pursuant to JR-16-04, the Ethics Committee made an inquiry into the matter. It is unclear whether they determined initially that further investigation was unwarranted or whether, after the preliminary inquiry, they determined the charges were unfounded. |
No recommendation of disciplinary action by the Senate Ethics Committee. |
N/A | ||
N/A indicates that the category was not applicable to that particular case.