Commentary by TrueDialog.org's Founder, Carl Lindemann

July 12 - The Guardians of Democracy

What happens at the state ethics commission is generally an obscure, uninteresting subject outside of the inner sanctum of state politics. The day-to-day dealings of the mechanics of maintaining and monitoring the electoral process are typically thankless. The general public only gets interested when there’s an uproar.

In Massachusetts, grumbling discontent over the state ethics commission has boiled over, forcing the executive director out. The Boston Globe report on the situation describes how the agency’s ability to do much of anything substantive was “bogged down” in bureaucratic procedures. According to a consultant’s report, “meetings were held to decide whether to hold meetings.” Apparently, there was a lot of busy work amidst accusations that the agency had been “soft on politicians, particularly legislators, who set the commission's budget.” The firing comes long after an independent “report in October 2005 calling for major changes in the way complaints are reviewed and investigated.”  Change comes slow. When things boil over, it's a slow boil.

In Maine, the state ethics commission is meeting on Monday under a cloud following TrueDialog.org's  call for an investigation of the Ethics Commission Chair Jean Ginn Marvin.  The full details are in the news section. In brief, Ginn Marvin failed to disclose her role on the board of Maine Heritage Policy Center when she applied for the appointment in 2004. Then, after she became the organization’s treasurer, she apparently crossed the line and participated in what is a specifically prohibited activity for Commissioners when MHPC began fundraising for the "TABOR" ballot measure last year.

Ginn Marvin’s term expired in April, yet she remains on the Commission because she is not seeking to serve a second term.  How’s that? If she sought reappointment, being MHPC’s treasurer would be an automatic disqualification. Since she is not seeking reappointment, she can remain on the commission indefinitely since the legislative leadership of her party has not offered any candidates for her replacement. While the future is uncertain for Ginn Marvin’s continued presence on the commission, the status of her past performance is in doubt, too. Were the many cases where Ginn Marvin played a role handled appropriately? Will many of these have to be reviewed and redone?  These include major cases such as the Saviello affair last year where the Commission's actions were so troubling that it inspired the call for ethics reform legislation.

The governor and legislative leadership are aware of the problem with Ginn Marvin. As yet, they have not responded. Jonathan Wayne, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, sent several e-mails to me asking if I wished to file a complaint about Ginn Marvin at the commission itself.

Let’s think about what that would mean.

On general principles, how is it appropriate to ask the Ethics Commission to conduct an investigation of the Ethics Commission Chair?

I explained to Wayne that the Commission would demonstrate integrity by raising the issue itself. What went unsaid was the only way this might work. Imagine if the Commission voted to hand this over to an independent investigation. That would show a fundamental integrity. What do we see instead? You will not find any of this on the Commission’s agenda for Monday. 

Maybe the hope is that if they ignore the problems with Ginn Marvin, no one will notice. We might hope for more from an agency called the “Ethics Commission.” This may be a slow boil like in Massachusetts, but it will boil over in time.

All materials on this website are copyright © 2007 by TrueDialog.org. All rights reserved.