April 27, 2006

Conflicts of Interest by Members of Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission?
How partisan should members of ethics commission be? 
(Updated April 28, 2006)

The Journal article quoted House Speaker Doug Mays:  "we're anxiously awaiting the outcome to see whether or not they are really nonpartisan." .Oddly, yesterday's Wichita Eagle story about the members of the Ethics Commission (also see online page of members at the Ethics Commission web site) indicated  "the commission has one vacancy, because House Speaker Doug Mays has not appointed someone."  Could Speaker Mays have done more to make sure the Commission was non-partisan by appointing a new responsible citizen to participate in the board's actions than speculating about future board decisions?  An elected official in Topeka said today that Mays "had sent over three people to fill his appointment to the commission and they have all been turned down.  Now I do not know exactly why they would oppose a Republican Speaker appointing a Republican to the seat, but that apparently was part of their reason for not appointing his choice."  Executive Director Carol Williams of the Ethics Commission today claimed "Speaker Mays' appointment has been open since January 31, 2003.  Since Speaker Mays did not make an appointment,  former Speaker Glascock's appointment continued to serve until summer of 2005.  That seat has been vacant since.".  What is the real story here?

Today's meeting was fairly predictable when the Commission voted 7-0 to fine Sebelius' re-election campaign $1500, much like Attorney General Kline was fined several weeks ago.  Fair minded folks likely believe that recent ethics "violations" by Sebelius, Kline, and others are ridiculous.  I agree with much of what Kenneth Daniel wrote in his recent article, "Ethics Violations? Give Me a Break?" posted on the KSSmallBiz.com web site.  

Sabrina Standifer.  Oddly, Sebelius' appointee and Ethics Board Chair, Sabrina Standifer, started today's meeting by emphasizing the importance and non-partisan nature of the commission.  At least she correctly recused herself from the vote on Sebelius today.  

But, two members of the board, including Standifer, may have serious conflicts of interest that show their partisan nature, and could color their decisions which affect the fairness of elections in Kansas.  The ethics of the Governmental Ethics Commission should be above reproach, so these likely conflicts of interest are troublesome.  

Board Chair Standifer was appointed by Kathleen Sebelius on Dec 29, 2005.  Earlier that year on Jan 24, 2005, the Kansas Democratic Party listed Sabrina Standifer as an alternate Fourth District Democratic Party Committee Delegate.  Executive Director Carol Williams of the Ethics Commission confirmed today that Standifer is still an alternate Democratic Party delegate for the 4th Congressional District.  According to Williams there is "There is not statute prohibiting members from being delegates to any political party."  Let's revisit this later.

In February 2005, OpenSecrets.org reports a $300 contribution by Standifer to the Kansas Democratic Party:

Last year the Lawrence Journal World and a Wichita Eagle blog entry questioned whether Sebelius' appointments were based on merit or money.  Will party activists decide ethics decisions and be fair and balanced?

Standifer served as a Kansas State Representative from Wichita District 103 from 1993-1996, which overlapped with the last two years of Sebelius' tenure in the Kansas House.   Letters from both Sebelius and Standifer to constituents in 1993 are shown on the Queer Resources Directory web site. 

On Feb 21, 1996 Paul Harvey's commentary was about three Kansas Democrats, including Standifer, walking out and protesting the invocation prayer given by Pastor Joe Wright to the Kansas State Legislature.  Read for yourself the prayer that Sabrina Standifer agreed was "blasphemous and ignorant."  Several Internet sites show this Paul Harvey commentary and Joe Wright's prayer:  site1 or site2. 

Shouldn't Standifer be considered an "ultra left wing" activist since she was only one of three Democrats to protest this prayer?  (Why are conservatives often labeled "ultra right wing" but liberals are called "moderates" instead of "ultra left wing"?)  Don't we want fair and impartial members on the Ethics Commission?

Tim Emert.  Yesterday's Wichita Eagle story listed Tim Emert as a member of the Ethics Commission and said he was "an Independence attorney and former Senate majority leader. Appointed by the Senate president.".  BUT, Tim Emert is currently a Montgomery County Republican Precinct committeeman.  Should a Republican Party official be a member of the Kansas Ethics Commission?  

A Dec 2005 KS Meadowlark report about the Political Profile of Members of "Kansas Traditional Republican Majority included listing KTRM board member Tim Emert  The Lawrence-Journal World listed other KTRM board members, including  former Lt. Gov. Gary Sherrer, former Senate President Dick Bond, former state Sen. Mark Buhler, of Lawrence, former State GOP Chairman Dennis Jones, former U.S. Rep. Jan Meyers and Bruce Ney, also of Lawrence.  Could a group be any more political or partisan? But according to Ethics Commission Executive Director Carol Williams today, "Emert resigned his position with the political action committee he was involved in when he was appointed to the Commission."  But how does this make Emert any less biased or less partisan in his political views?

That page details a number of partisan political activities of Emert, who as a Republican went out of his way to support Democrat Kathleen Sebelius.  Emert wrote several letters to editors in support of Sebelius in 2002.

Republican Emert  made several political contributions in 2002 and 2004, mostly to Democrats even though he is a Republican precinct committeeman in Montgomery County:

Just last year in 2005 Emert was $500 contributor to Democrat Katheleen Sebelius [see p. 120 of online report -- file is huge, 220 MB].  So instead of an Ethics Commission vote today to fine Sebelius $1500 for her errant E-mail, shouldn't Emert have recused himself from this vote because of this huge conflict of interest?

Emert did recuse himself a few weeks ago in the Ethics Commission vote to fine Attorney General Kline for a similar problem.  But, how can Emert been seen as non-partisan and fair in most commission votes about partisan issues?  Emert has contributed to both past and future Kline opponents: $100 to Democrat Chris Biggs in 2002, and $1000 to Democrat Paul Morrison [see p. 39 of online Morrison report -- a huge 48 MB file]. 

Emert and Standifer's (and Sebelius') tenure in the Kansas House also overlapped (1993-1996) and both Emert and Standifer saw no need for an amendment to protect marriage in 1996 according to a K-State Collegian article.  Last year such a constitutional amendment passed 104 of 105 counties with 414,106 voting "yes" (70%)  and 178,018 voting "no" (30%).

Isn't Emert far too partisan and politically active to be a board member of the Kansas Ethics Commission?  

How can the Ethics Commission have any credibility when it does not deal with conflicts of interest by its own members?  

Update (April 28)  The Kansas Law  (KSA 25-4119d) about membership on a commission says:

25-4119d

Chapter 25.--ELECTIONS Article 41.--ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE; GENERAL

      25-4119d.   Membership on commission; qualifications for. (a) From and after the effective date of this act, no person shall be appointed to membership on the commission who has held the office of chairperson, vice chairperson or treasurer of any county, district or state political party committee, or who within five years preceding the date of such appointment has been a candidate for or the holder of any partisan political office or who has within three years preceding the date of such appointment: (1) Held an elective state office; (2) held the office of secretary of any department of state government; (3) been a lobbyist as defined by K.S.A. 46-222 and amendments thereto; (4) been an officer or employee who directly participated in the making of a contract on behalf of a vendor of goods and services with the state of Kansas or any agency thereof; or (5) provided services under contract to the state of Kansas or any agency thereof.

      (b)   While serving on the commission created by K.S.A. 25-4119a, and amendments thereto, no member shall: (1) Be an individual subject to the provisions of the campaign finance law or the provisions of K.S.A. 46-215 et seq. and amendments thereto administered or enforced by the commission; (2) serve as a chairperson or treasurer for any candidate or committee subject to the provisions of the campaign finance act; (3) actively solicit contributions subject to the provisions of the campaign finance act; (4) be a lobbyist as defined by K.S.A. 46-222 and amendments thereto; (5) be an officer or employee who directly participated in the making of a contract on behalf of a vendor of goods and services with the state of Kansas or any agency thereof; (6) provide services under contract to the state of Kansas or any agency thereof; (7) be a candidate for or the holder of any partisan political office; (8) be the chairperson, vice chairperson or treasurer of any county, district or state political party committee; (9) directly or indirectly solicit contributions for any partisan political party or any organization thereof or any candidate for partisan political office; or (10) endorse any candidate for any partisan political office subject to the provisions of this act.

Standifer is an ELECTED alternate to the Fourth District Democratic Party Committee. Emert is an ELECTED precinct committee Republican delegate in Montgomery County.   Why are these two NOT considered a "partisan political office" and a direct violation of 25-4119d?  Even if somehow these two Commission members are not in technical violation of the law, they are violating the sprit of having non-partisans and unbiased individuals decide ethics matters in Kansas.  

At a minimum, the Kansas law needs to be modified to require commission members to have complied with all the requirements of their office for one, complete 4-year state election cycle.  Emert's blatant claim to be a Republican and write endorsement letters to editors for Democrat Sebelius in 2002 should have disqualified him for consideration until the end of Sebelius' first term.  Emert's participation in the KTRM PAC should have disqualified him to be considered a non-partisan until a 4-year state election cycle had passed.  

Another change that is badly needed is COMPLETE public disclosure of ALL political contributions by ALL ethics commission members and staff for the last 10 years.  It's a total sham that ethics commission members be allowed to be completely partisan outside the office and expected to be totally non-partisan on the job, especially when there is no oversight or review.

On what basis can the ethics commission deny the the nominations of Speaker Mays as his representative on the commission?

The conflicts of interest by ethics commission members are quite troubling as we approach our next elections.  

Related:  KS Meadowlark article form March 2005:

Kansas Governmental Ethics Office Goes Easy on Violations by Tiller's PACs? Did former Kansas Ethics General Counsel, and ProKanDo Contributor, have any part in decision?

K a n s a s M e a d o w l a r k @ e f g 2 . c o m