Watchdog groups disturbed by the problems with Georgia’s beleaguered ethics commission say the playing field is tilted toward Gov. Nathan Deal. They’ve got a point, even though all Deal has done is follow state law. And the events of this week underscore just how vexing the system can be.
State law vests the governor’s office with the power to appoint a majority of ethics commissioners; the state inspector general, who probes complaints of corruption; and, in this case, the head of the auditing agency that tries to right the wrongs of other agencies.
That all came into play this week when ethics commissioners tapped the chief auditor to conduct a performance review of the troubled agency's internal procedures. And because Deal has ties to the decision-makers, he struggles to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
It’s a unique problem, as internal watchdogs typically handle complaints against legislators and state officials and not the man who appoints them. But a round of allegations disclosed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution claiming Deal’s staff improperly intervened in an ethics investigation of the governor’s 2010 campaign has raised questions about the system.
Even Deal has been frustrated by the system. He and his staff say they are complying with the law by appointing the ethics commissioners and other state officers. And they contend the turmoil roiling the agency, including allegations that its executive director sought to help Deal, has nothing to do with them.
“I’m obviously an observer from the outside who is apparently getting credit for having done all this, and I’ve had nothing to do with any of that,” Deal said. His spokesman, Brian Robinson, called it an “interoffice squabble at an agency and we haven’t been involved in it.”
Now, transparency advocates and lawmakers say it’s time for an overhaul. The General Assembly didn’t address how the commission is selected when it passed other sweeping ethics rules this year. But legislators are contemplating whether to change how the commission is chosen, with the notion that no one should appoint a majority of the panel.
That would be a contrast from the current law that gives the governor three of the five appointments, while the speaker of the House and lieutenant governor each name one.
The discussions, while in very early stages, would address an issue that has alarmed watchdog groups and even Deal’s office: the implication that the governor controls the commission’s decisions. Already, some legislators are questioning whether the current construct is the best way to handle ethics oversight.
“Probably not,” said state Rep. Rusty Kidd of Milledgeville, the General Assembly’s lone independent. “It gives the picture of impropriety even if there is none.”
But the pitfalls of the process go beyond that. The state auditor, who will conduct a review into the ethics commission’s problems, reports to the General Assembly but was appointed by Deal in June 2012 because legislators weren’t in session. Deal’s aides say they consulted with legislative leaders before selecting Greg Griffin for the job.
The law also requires that Deal tap the state inspector general, who probes complaints against state agencies and employees, including one facing Deal.
As the ethics questions have swirled, a frustrated Deal and his staff say they are being improperly tainted for following protocol. And Deal, who has said he does not oppose changes to how ethics commissioners are named, said Democrats and others who have targeted him are mischaracterizing the process.
“They, too, are trying to take advantage and use this as a political tool,” Deal said after a recent event. “There was no improper involvement whatsoever. This is an old story and it has been dealt with by the ethics commission, and the members of that commission are tapped on a bipartisan basis.”
The commission has been bipartisan in name only since Kent Alexander, the lone Democrat, stepped down in September. Deal’s office announced Friday that it had picked Lawton Jordan, a local attorney who once worked for the Senate Democratic caucus, to serve as the lone Democrat on the panel.
Other lawmakers have argued against a rush to overhaul the entire system, saying the state instead should create a separate process to deal with unique situations. State Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, wants to give the state attorney general power to call statewide grand juries to investigate public corruption.
He said a new process should be built into the law for these types of dicey situations “so we’re not trying to create an ad hoc process all the time.”
Watchdog groups said another answer would tie funding for Georgia’s independent ethics commission to a fixed percentage of the annual budget. They would also take appointments out of the hands of lawmakers and the governor.
“We will push hard this upcoming session to make sure a constitutional amendment gets put on the ballot to allow the citizens of the state to vote for a more independent commission,” said William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia.
About the Author
