Commentary by TrueDialog.org's Founder, Carl Lindemann

August 14 - A Moral Meltdown at the Maine Ethics Commission

The much-needed discussion about the problems surrounding former Ethics Commission Chair Jean Ginn Marvin almost happened at the agency's monthly meeting yesterday. Almost. Instead of having the discussion, current Commission Chair Michael Friedman allowed a discussion as to whether there would be a discussion about Ginn Marvin. Friedman "jumped the shark" by allowing Ginn Marvin to participate - a grotesque impropriety. Though this was obviously all about Ginn Marvin, Friedman claimed this was not a breach of basic ethical standards because:

"What we're discussing is a general rule or policy and procedure that this Commission has the authority to discuss - whoever discusses it. It's not directed to anyone at this point in time. It's just a simple, uh, dialog, so to speak among us to figure out where we're going today from here. Whether or not we're going to have a further discussion or whether or not we will not." 

What was Ginn Marvin's "policy" input?  

"Can I point out one thing? That, um, the Senate is going to meet in September to confirm my successor. That at this point the Governor has a couple of names in mind that he feels comfortable putting forward. So it seems to me maybe a smarter and better use of everybody's time for me to just have your meeting later in September then when the Senate confirmation hearing is. And if for some reason that all falls apart, you can have that discussion at that point. But as opposed to have a discussion of something that's never going to happen seems like kind of a waste of time." (note: Ginn Marvin was supposedly going to leave in April, then apparently decided to stay indefinitely)

So, let's see the "logic" here - if the discussion is not about Ginn Marvin, what's pertinent about her personal information? For Friedman to claim that this is some abstract policy discussion smacks of a lawyer trying to pull a legal end-run. Is this the way the Ethics Commission Chair wishes to bolster confidence in government?  

The whole, absurd 16-minute discussion is worth a listen (voices - in order of first appearance: Commissioner Mavourneen Thompson, Executive Director Jonathan Wayne, Commission Chair Michael Friedman, Commissioner Jean Ginn Marvin, myself, Commissioner Vinton Cassidy, Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner). 

Friedman's strategy, aided and abetted by Commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne and Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner, seems to be to keep the focus so narrow so that they do nothing, but can claim they've taken some action. Friedman demanded that the talk be strictly about jurisdiction. Can Commissioners disqualify/force the recusal or a fellow Commissioner? Though this was not the issue I brought to the Commission, I was ready  to make a case for why Commissioners do have that power. Unfortunately, I was not given the opportunity to do so. Wayne failed to include a document I submitted on the issue. Also, I was not allowed to speak fully on the matter. It's also important to note that the Executive Director and Assistant Attorney General did not make a case for the opposite.

If I had been allowed to speak even on this narrow issue, I was ready to point to the precedent the Commission established earlier this year - at their January 19 meeting. This eight-minute exchange addresses the issue directly. It features many of the same characters but adds then-Commission Chair Andrew Ketterer and my attorney John Branson. They decide that it is within the Commission's ability to have a formal vote on Ginn Marvin's recusal. Note that Friedman participates both in the discussion and the vote. If he had an issue with the process, he had ample opportunity to raise it then. Oh, add the fact  Ketterer is a former ATTORNEY GENERAL for the state...seems to lend some legitimacy to the view that the question of jurisdiction that Friedman wants to focus on is a non-issue. 

I will have more to say about this later. For now, check the facts. It seems that the Ethics Commission is in the middle of a moral meltdown. I'm glad to entertain other ways to read this. Send them below!

***

What is Authenticity?

The Wages of Spin   Project Spin Shop

Ideas & Essays   Spin Shops, State by State

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