Opinion ID: 2062246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the framers of the constitutional amendment intended to confer substantive legislative power regarding ethics on the commission?

Text: A review of the proceedings of the constitutional convention provides valuable insight into the intent of the framers when they drafted and approved Resolution No. 86-00060 (Sub A) regarding ethics in government. As previously indicated, the ethics committee appointed by the constitutional convention deliberated throughout the spring of 1986. [12] The committee members attempted to effectuate a series of proposals aimed at ethics reform into a precise resolution to be presented to the full convention on June 26, 1986. The following is taken from the transcript of the committee meeting conducted on May 22, 1986: Delegate Gelch: [T]he tragedy of what we have to do here is that we have to leave the implementation of a code of ethics to the thoughts [ sic ] [fox] guarding the chicken coop because once again, it's the old statement we all love our legislature, but we don't  when we look at the whole legislature, we don't trust the legislature. Delegate Philips: I think we should require all of those to follow a detailed code of ethics which we would require the conflict of interest commission or successor agency to draft, promulgate, and implement.  (Emphasis added.) In addition, delegate Lacouture noted that the responsibility of developing a code of ethics should be placed upon the Conflict of Interest Commission or alternatively that a new ethics commission should be created to replace the Conflict of Interest Commission. The transcript further provided: Chairman DeSisto: Personally, I think, and let's face it  we all distrust the General Assembly. Delegate Lacouture: Maybe some of our concerns can be resolved if instead of relying on the structure to come up with the code of ethics or the prohibition  let this commission do that. Delegate Milette: You know, that's a new idea, and I like it   . [W]e would direct that a code of ethics be developed.    [T]he code of ethics will be developed, and put the responsibility on the Conflict of Interest Commission instead of on the state legislature. Now that takes the fox away from the chickens   . What I would like to see is to make sure it just doesn't die at the table, that it gets passed on to a responsible body which we would spell out to make the code of ethics become a reality. Now if we are all concerned about the state legislature doing it or doing it right, let's take it away from them. Let's give it to another body.  (Emphases added.) In addition to the foregoing, the committee's report to the convention dated May 27, 1986, lends further insight into the framers' intent. The report states in pertinent part: The Committee    determined that it was preferable to establish the general standard in the Constitution and leave the details to the ethics commission   . Section 2 of the resolution directs the general assembly to establish an independent non-partisan ethics commission which is responsible for developing a code of ethics, investigating violations and enforcing it. (Emphasis added.) Also noteworthy are the committee chairman's comments made in his presentation of the committee's resolution to the full convention body. He stated, [W]e came up with an independent, non-partisan commission to enforce a Code of Ethics; first to develop it; and second, to enforce it, and we feel there's enough teeth in there to get the job done. (Emphasis added.) Given the foregoing language, it is abundantly clear that the framers expressly intended to limit the General Assembly's power to enact substantive legislation regarding ethics. Rather, their primary intent was to empower the commission with the authority to develop a code of ethics, to investigate violations, and to enforce its provisions, always subject to review by the judicial branch of government consistent with the Constitution.