| I've written two previous posts on Speaker Jim Tucker's ethical lapses, which you can view here and here.
Only one of those came before the Ethics Board, the one on the GOZone credits he claimed, then relinquished, and the Ethics Board chose not to file charges against him.
Despite that, Speaker Tucker is pushing a bill - HB 41, which will do the following:
House Bill 41 would put state administrative law judges in charge of issuing ethics rulings, while leaving the ethics board to investigate and prosecute allegations of wrongdoing.
Currently, the Ethics Board investigates and rules on ethics charges filed before it, which has been deemed constitutional by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The key thing to know about this is that this was not part of Jindal's 31-point ethics plan, nor was it part of his transition ethics advisory board's recommendations, but was prompted by conversations with lawmakers who don't like the way the Ethics Board operates today, according to The Advocate.
Is Speaker Tucker rushing this through the House because he feels that the Ethics Board has not treated him fairly? I find that difficult to swallow, the being treated unfairly part, that is. He escaped being punished for claiming the GOZone credits, yet he still claims that the charges were politically motivated. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you oughta undergo ethics re-education, and then you'll realize, perhaps for the first time, that you actually violated the law by applying for the credits in the first place.
But Speaker Tucker will almost certainly have to go before the Ethics Board for his role in pushing and voting for then HB 501, now Act 99 of the 2007 Legislative Session, which benefited his new wife quite nicely. So if he can get the laws governing the Ethics Board changed, especially the part where it says the Ethics Board has the power to enforce the law, it may benefit him quite nicely.
I say this because the members of the Ethics Board are nominated by state colleges before being appointed by the Governor or the Legislature, whereas administrative law judges are appointed by the Governor. This, I think, makes administrative law judges more susceptible to political influence from whomever sits in the Governor's chair.
Further, the current Chairman of the Ethics Board, Henry "Hank" Perret Jr., stated:
"The board's collective wisdom is better than that of a single judge."
I couldn't agree more. If the Ethics Board needs to have a more formal division from the staff of the Ethics Board, which does the investigating of ethics charges, then by all means, legislate that. Don't push the enforcement of our ethics laws into the hands of administrative law judges that are appointed by the Governor. |
