Just like the U.S. government, Tennessee government has three branches. Generally, states have the same system. It’s pretty neat. It generally works.
But, some tea drinkers in the Tennessee General Assembly want to change that. They don’t seem to be happy with a system that separates power and function among three branches of government. They are so hyped up on their own brand of caffeine-laced tea that they think they should control all of state government.
They have already made rumblings that they want to control how the State Attorney General and other state officers are selected. Now, they want a hand in the review and disciplinary process for judges in the state as well.
Led by Mt. Juliet’s Sen. Mae Beavers who has an axe to grind with the judicial system, along with Cleveland’s Rep. Eric Watson, the committee wails that the judicial review system is secretive and inbred because a majority of the Court of the Judiciary is selected by the Supreme Court.
Interesting argument. Are Beavers and Watson aware that the state Ethics Commission formed to investigate corruption among state elected officials including members of the General Assembly is selected from names selected by the respective party caucuses? And, perhaps they haven’t been in office long enough to figure out that there reporting of the Ethics Commission action is just as limited as that of the Court of the Judiciary.
When the similarities were pointed out to Beavers recently, she indicated that she would be willing to reform the Tennessee Ethics Commission along with the Court of Judiciary.
I have a better idea. How about Beavers and Watson spend some time cleaning up their own houses before they try to take control of someone else’s. If they could show that they could bring integrity to the Tennessee General Assembly, perhaps we could consider trusting them with control of another branch of government. That should keep them busy for a while.
Yes, the party caucuses nominate people for appointment to the Ethics Commission.
However, the Commission is politically balanced, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and there are 3 appointing authorities, the 2 Speakers and the Governor. Thus, the appointing authority is divided between the 2 Houses and between 2 branches of government. They do not appoint their own members or staffers to the Commission. Moreover, the Ethics Commission is an independent agency, separate from any branch of government.
Anyone who has attended Ethics Commission meetings knows that the Commission does not debate or vote along party lines.
Legislators are only a small part of the individuals over which the Commission has jurisdiction.
It has jurisdiction over all officials in the Executive and Legislative branches, candidates for those offices; the filing of personal financial information by 19 categories of state officials, including the Governor, Cabinet, Supreme Court and intermediate appellate courts, Attorney General, and numerous other persons, as well as candidates and elected officials of local governments, including trial court judges – in all, several thousand filers.
It also has jurisdiction over all registered lobbyists and employers of lobbyists. (By the way, one has to receive compensation in order to be a “lobbyist” under the ethics act.)
The Ethics Commission imposes many sanctions without use of the complaint and investigation process. See the minutes of the June 14, 2010, August 31, 2010, November 9, 2010 and June 17, 2011 meetings, at http://www.tennessee.gov/sos/tec/meetings.htm.
The Commission does many things besides pursuing complaint proceedings to ensure transparency in state government. These include: Randomly auditing up to 4% of registered lobbyists; imposing sanctions for late filings of registrations, reports and disclosures; training lobbyists, employers of lobbyists, legislators, and officials in the executive branch; issuing ethical guidelines to the General Assembly, executive branch officials, employers of lobbyists and lobbyists, and filing annual reports with the Legislature and Governor.
The Ethics Commission can seek an injunction in Chancery Court to prevent violations, and is required to report potential criminal conduct to the appropriate authorities.
Only a tiny portion of the Ethics Commission’s functions is confidential. The only complaints that remain confidential with the Ethics Commission are complaints that do not rise to minimal compliance with the statute, including those that the Commission does not even have jurisdiction over.
Unlike the Court of the Judiciary where everything is done in secret, all other complaints to the Ethics Commission become public, including those that are dismissed (after a factual investigation by the Attorney General’s office) because there is no probable cause to believe that there has actually been a violation.
It is not the purpose of this article to compare the Ethics Commission with the Court of the Judiciary, but to refute incorrect statements and suppositions about the Ethics Commission. However, there is no valid basis for the statement that “[the] reporting of the Ethics Commission action is just as limited as that of the Court of the Judiciary.”
Without commenting on the reporting of the Court of the Judiciary, I invite Mr. White to go to the Ethics Commission’s website and peruse the documents that are available to the public.
Unlike the Court of the Judiciary, the Ethics Commission is subject to the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and the Tennessee Public Records Act with the exception of the very few documents pertaining to complaints that are improper on their face or over which the Commission has no jurisdiction at all.