Ethical Clarification Sought On Bullying/Secrecy

Here's a copy of a letter I sent to Ethics Chair Martin Gross.  Believeing in openness, I have decided to share it with all, including the media.

January 20, 2012

Mr. Martin Gross

Chairman, House Ethics Committee

Concord, NH

 Chairman Gross:

Thank you for the advisory opinion regarding Cannon Mountain.  Since I don’t ski, it certainly doesn’t affect me, and the clarification is useful for those who do.

 Something has troubled me a great deal in recent days, weeks, months, and in fact years, so I would like to ask you for a clarification of some sort.  I refer to Ethics Guidelines, 1 Principles of Public Service, Parts II and III.

Section II states, “Principle On Independent Objective Judgment—Legislators should employ independent objective judgment in performing their duties, deciding all matters on merits free from conflicts of interest and both real and apparent improper influences.”

To me, this means that all legislators must put the interests of the Constitution and the people who elected us ahead of party interests.  To me, this means that bullying, coercion, or intimidation by party leaders to change votes would constitute a conflict of interest.

This is especially timely because, as you might have read in today’s papers, Rep. Susan Emerson has anti-bulling bill before a House committee (page 1, Monitor, Jan. 20).  Charges of bullying were limited in yesterday’s hearing, but apparently there are many such charges.

As I read section 2 of the ethics guidelines if any such bullying has occurred, the Speaker or his minions who have engaged in such bullying tactics (or those who have allowed themselves to be so seduced) are already in violation of the ethics section sited above.  However, before anyone files charges against any particular member or group of members, I feel we need clarification on precisely what “employ independent objective judgment” means.

Here are two examples.  I was very saddened last year when various Republican leaders, in an attempt to unduly influence all its members to vote the same way, instituted a policy of having their “whips” wave red or greet hankies from their seats.  To me, this would violate the principle of exercising independent objective judgment.  Actually I was going to write you regarding this earlier, but the practice seems to have stopped this year.

However, something much more serious transpired Wednesday during the debate on House Bill 592, the redistricting bill.  In an absolute stunning development, an amendment sponsored by Rep. Cohn, Infantine, Hogan, Greazzo, Parison and I passed by a margin of 170-153.  This was not what the Speaker and Republican leadership wanted, so the Speaker immediately called a recess for a caucus.  While I don’t feel at liberty to detail what went on in the caucus, in my opinion there was blatant intimidation, coercion, arm twisting, whatever word or phrase you might choose to use.  When we came back into session following caucus, Rep. Shawn Jasper moved for reconsideration.  The motion carried 209-110, and the amendment was subsequently defeated 202-116.  You don’t need to be a math expert to determine that many people changed their votes in the wake of what I am convinced was undue intimidation in the caucus.

There was no roll call on the original motion; thus we have no record of those who allowed themselves into being intimated into changing their votes, of the many people who failed to “employ independent objective judgment “.  However, it is clear that Rep. Shawn Jasper was one of those who changed.  We know this since he vouched that he had voted yes on the original motion (as you know, one must be on the prevailing side to ask for reconsideration), and then did as Republican leadership demanded on the reconsideration vote (roll call number 52).  Even more than that, he then left the room and failed to take part in the vote on the Cohn Amendment the second time around (roll call number 53).

I ask for your clarification as to how much coercion is allowed before it would be in violation of the ethics provision I noted here.  Clearly, as we learn in testimony from the Emerson bill, intimidation has been at record level this year.  It seems to me that the Speaker and his minions and those who have failed to employ independent objective judgment are guilty of ethics violations many times over, but then I’m not a lawyer.

That’s why I ask for your clarification of this section which I have always taken very seriously but which others apparently don’t take at all seriously.  There must be some line which, when crossed, would constitute an ethics violation. There must be a line between doing what a party wants and violating our oath of office and our ethical obligations.  When is that line crossed?  I fear it has been crossed often this year, but I need your clarification.  Of course, anyone could file a complaint with your commission and should I choose to do that, I would of course follow the provisions that it be done secretly.  However, I understand that this request is a public document and that your committee’s response, like your response regarding Cannon Mountain, would be a public document.

As we move forward with the Emerson bullying bill, we desperately need clarification on this ethics guideline.  I believe we also need clarification on “Section III Principle of Accountability” which states, “Legislators should assure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold government officials accountable.”

Others have charged, and I am beginning to agree, that most of the House redistricting process was not “conducted openly”.  I really got a sense of this last Tuesday when I walked into a room and House attorney Ed Mosca and Committee Vice Chair David Bates immediately stopped talking.  Mind you, I am the Clerk of the committee, so if I am being locked out of information, imagine what the public is being denied.  An investigation, sadly, would likely show that much of the redistricting work was done behind closed doors by non-elected officials.  It was so bad that when asked—by members of both parties—who put the plans together, Chairman Paul Mirski had no response other than to say her would take credit for them.  Clearly, others were secretly involved.  Clearly, these others ignored what little public input there was.  The question is how much secrecy is allowed before violation of Section III occurs.  Certainly, words have meaning, and if meaning is to be followed, can such secrecy be acceptable?

Sincerely, 

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, Hills. 15

161 Faith Lane

Manchester, NH 03103