"The moment you walk in this door and file a complaint, you are prohibited by law, a class A misdemeanor, of discussing the fact that you walked in here and gave us that complaint.” 

-- Carol Williams

Executive Director, Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission

Oct. 19, 2008 

But what happens when the Ethics Commission doesn’t follow the law? 

That’s the question I’ve been asking since discovering the commission is apparently more interested in secrecy than enforcing campaign finance laws. 

After the commission fined a citizen $7,500 for talking to the press, including a reporter from Kansas Liberty, about a complaint he had filed, I re-examined a Kansas Open Records Request I had received last year.

In the request, Carol Williams, executive director of the Ethics Commission, and Judy Moler, general counsel for the commission, had disclosed an e-mail communication between Williams and a man in Wichita who alleged campaign-finance violations. 

K.S.A. 25-4161 (b) states that once a complaint is filed, “such filing and the allegations therein shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.” 

So imagine my surprise when not one, but three additional copies of the same e-mail were included in my open-records request. But the last three copies had been redacted. Why would they provide me with one full copy and three useless, redacted copies? 

My curiosity piqued, I investigated further and realized the commission has quite a history of playing it fast and loose with state confidentiality laws. 

A Sept. 20, 2002, Hutchinson News article indicates even Williams herself has disclosed possible investigations to the press.

After being questioned by a Hutch News reporter about political action committee contributions to a State Board of Education candidate, Williams confirmed, “That is going to be questioned.” 

Sounds like an investigation to me. So why would Williams tell the press about it? Isn’t that a violation of state statute? 

An Oct. 19, 2008, Topeka Capital-Journal article shows Williams was quite willing to discuss a complaint against a private citizen, but clung to confidentiality when questions about dirty politicians came up. 

According to the Cap-Journal, “Carol Williams, executive director of the ethics commission, said the board privately reviews all complaints. These preliminary assessments of evidence aren't open to the public, she said. Neither the complainant nor the target of an allegation is permitted to comment publicly about the contents of a complaint, she said.” 

She said even more than that. “Williams said Van Meteren might have committed a crime by speaking with The Topeka Capital-Journal about his case. A commission investigator in Topeka is looking into a possible counter complaint against Van Meteren.” 

Are commission personnel allowed to comment if an investigation is still occurring? Is that the yardstick by which “ethics” are measured, whether you speak to the press before or after a complaint is filed? 

That appears to be the mantra of the commission. 

In fact, Williams seems unable to help herself in certain situations. In an article about possible campaign spending violations by former Attorney General Phill Kline, Williams said, “(F)inal evaluation of Kline’s action await a review of evidence by the commission.” She further clarified that she’d “want to see telephone records” to determine if a violation had occurred. 

And yet the next day the Wichita Eagle reported “she (Williams) would not say whether the commission had questions about Kline's report.” 

Once a complaint is filed, no public disclosure is allowed until “probable cause” is determined. If the commission decided the complaint is bogus, they could dismiss the complaint with no more than a notification to the person filing the complaint and the candidate under investigation. 

In other words, the public is at the complete mercy of the commission, and thus the government, to ensure justice is carried out. 

So although selectively applying the law might be reason enough to be concerned, Kansans should be even more worried about a system where politically appointed commission members are fully in charge of ensuring campaign finance laws are enforced. 

The best "Ethics Commission" is the people, investigating politicians on their own time through open-records requests and examination of campaign finance records, which can be posted, then be publicized by a free and open press. A responsible, engaged public and a free press are the only assurances citizens have that politicians are on the straight and narrow. 

The idea that a closed-door government body, and not the people, should have the final say on whether or not a politician has behaved ethically is beyond laughable. 

And then there’s the matter of what to do when the commission’s own staff violates state statutes.

Who investigates Williams for disclosing investigations to the press? By fining a private citizen for the very same actions she has taken, the Ethics Commission has shown an aptitude for determining when confidentiality has been breached. Should one file a complaint with the commission about the commission? Not if you want to talk to the press about it.

So where does one go to complain about the Ethics Commission? How is the body that secretly oversees the ethics of politicians itself checked? 

One would think the best check would be the public. And yet that’s not possible under current law. The secret proceedings of the commission are sacred to the point of gagging anyone who would dare to question the actions of politicians. 

The answer to all of these problems is, of course, action on the part of the public.

• Pressure should be applied to elected officials to take action against the commission.
• Members of the commission themselves should be put on notice that selective application of the law will no longer be accepted.
• And legislative committees should begin to look at a revision of ethics laws, allowing more public input and supervision of the commission. 

The question is fundamental and simple--who is most effective in keeping politicians honest? The government or the people? 

I believe it’s the people.

___________

James Meier is a student at the University of Kansas.

The Week in Review