Archives

Uncategorized

We published this report yesterday about a school choice group that paid for N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis and a bipartisan group of lawmakers to learn about a controversial tax credit scholarship program in Miami.

A big unanswered question is whether the trip is allowed under North Carolina’s strict lobbying laws, which ban lobbyists from giving anything of value under most situations.

The crux seems to be what the purpose of the trip was — if it was to educate, then it’s okay. But if the trip’s goal was to influence lawmakers, then it’s not an allowable exception to the gift ban.

Bob Phillips of the government watchdog group Common Cause said he believes the trip violates ethics laws.

Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina maintains the trip was okay, because it was an educational trip about the Florida program that gives companies state credits when they donate money to send low-income children to private schools. The program worries many supporters of public education, because it diverts needed tax revenue away from public schools to a private school system that isn’t accountable to taxpayers.

The group has made no secret that it wants to bring the program here, and PEFNC director Darrell Allison said in a podcast on an education reform website that the Florida trip could lead to the North Carolina General Assembly bringing the tax credit program here.

Allison justified the trip in March with a 2008 ethics advisory letter it got for a different trip to Florida, but did not seek prior clearance from the State Ethics Commission for the March trip.

I asked PEFNC for a copy of that 2008 advisory letter on May 2, but was never provided a copy.

Allison did give a copy to WRAL’s Mark Binker yesterday, and you can see the letter here, as well as the entire WRAL post here. (And, to throw up one more link, you can also see some of the public records related to the trip that I used here.)

The advisory letter clearly show that PEFNC got the okay for the 2008 trip, but is limited to only that trip.

From the 2008 letter:

PEFNC will need to report the total amount it spends for this trip on it (sic) lobbyist principal report that it is required to file with the Secretary of State’s Office because, as we discussed, as well as being educational this trip is also to influence these participating legislators to support legislation in North Carolina similar to the Florida legislation that established tax credits for these special needs schools, known as the McKay Scholarship Schools.

Read More

Uncategorized

Raleigh’s News & Observer editorialized on the Charles Thomas affair this morning. The paper — rightfully it seems — called for more forthcoming statements from House Speaker Tillis on his roommate’s romantic relationship with a powerful lobbyist.

At one point in the editorial, however, there is an overly-generous characterization of what the law allows and doesn’t allow when it comes to lobbyists and legislative employees.

According to the N&O:

“Legislative employees are not supposed to accept anything of value from lobbyists in exchange for official action. Thomas apparently didn’t do that, and the rules on ‘in exchange for official action’ are pretty wide open to interpretation.”

What the paper is describing is bribery — which is obviously banned.

But the law goes further than that. G.S. 138A-32(c) says the following: Read More

Uncategorized

And some people say the end of a session is a circus. They must have been watching the passage of House Bill 2542 the bill passed by lawmakers during the waning days of the 2008 session to "clarify ethics and lobbying laws."  

It was a lot like a magic act as the General Assembly worked on 'technical' amendments to North Carolina's Ethics Law –Now you see it! Now you don’t! And no one seems to know how (or why) it was done. There was lots of back and forth in the last week of the session about the ethics bill which was in theory merely a technical correction, but somehow the bill ended up as 28 pages long and with more than technical corrections in it. 

The high point of this bill is probably what wasn’t in it –a very large (the size of a Sherman tank) loophole to the gift ban exemption which showed up about 2:30 Thursday afternoon in the proposed Committee substitute in the Senate Select Committee on Elections and Government Reform. It allowed for a gift ban exemption that would have allowed legislators, legislative employees, and public employees to have someone other than the state of North Carolina pay for their food, beverages, registration, travel, lodging, entertainment, and items of nominal value provided in conjunction or in connection with a meeting or conference. It did require that the person get prior authorization for their attendance at the meeting. It didn’t require that they get prior authorization for someone to pay for them. 

No one seemed to know who was going to tell legislators whether or not they could attend a conference – the Speaker, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, George Hall. No one was willing to take credit for the provision. According to the Senate, the House put it in and according to the House, it must have been the Senate.  In the end, with enough pressure from the Coalition and friends, the provision was pulled.

The bill also redefines what a public event is. Legislators said that they didn’t really mean “public events” where the statues now say “public events”. These events were never really meant to be open to the public. Generally, they are social events (receptions) for members of the General Assembly, legislative employees, or public servants  along with lobbyists, lobbyists’ principals, and members of organizations, groups, associations, etc. To clarify what they meant, they divided “public events “ into three categories.

-A meeting of a public body such as a city council as long as the notice of the meeting follows the Open Meetings Law.

-A gathering of an organization with at least ten people in attendance with a sign, or other indication that it is open to the public.

-A gathering of a person or governmental unit to which the entire board of which a public servant is a member, at least 10 public servants, all the members of the House of Representatives, all the members of the Senate, all the members of a county or municipal legislative delegation, all the members of a recognized legislative caucus with regular meetings other than meetings with one or more lobbyists, all the members of a committee, a standing subcommittee, a joint committee or joint commission of the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the General Assembly, or all legislative employees are invited.

There are conditions not really different form existing law except that only 24 hours is required for an invitation which must be written and one of the following applies: The "official" reason for the 24 hour notice is that the members of the General Assembly are worried about their safety if there is more public notice than 24 hours given about an event.  We have already made it clear that we dislike this section that we want transparency about these events and will try to change the law in the long session.

On the House side, we also managed to remove a provision about scholarships to meetings like NCSL. It showed up in a less obnoxious though far from perfect form in negotiations about concurrence on Friday along with a couple of other things.  Unfortunately, the last of those negotiations took place about 4- 4:15 on Friday so we couldn’t get exactly what we wanted. The final language does allow for scholarships to meetings related to legislative positions and official duties. Most of the rest of the bill is truly technical amendments – clarifying words, etc.  However, there are a few substantive things.

For example, the State Ethics Commission (SEC) will no longer issue an evaluation of each statement of economic interest (SEI) since they (the SEC) believes that everything can be a conflict of interest for legislators since the scope of their responsibilities is so broad. Legislators will be notified within 7 days of an allegation made about them to the SEC, the SEC will have 7 days after the submission of a completed SEI to make any recommendations or decisions about the appointees to the UNC Board of Governors or Community College Boards of trustees. The SEC will have to publish redacted opinions within thirty days after the Commission makes a decision and issues a formal opinion.

In sum, while there are a few minor improvements to the Ethics Act in this bill, it is not a step forward.  The General Assembly needs to know that North Carolinians demand the highest standards of honesty and openness. We're not there yet.