As ethics review sputters, Deal distances himself from commission
Gov. Nathan Deal tried to distance himself Wednesday from a growing crisis in the state ethics commission by casting himself as an outsider who is caught in the crossfire of a legal dispute between warring staffers at the agency.
Yet efforts to sort out the ethics commission’s internal problems remain muddled in the weeks after a series of reports by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution documented concerns over the handling of complaints accusing the governor of misusing campaign funds in his 2010 election.
Deal's comments came in response to an AJC story published the same day featuring John Hair, a former computer specialist with the ethics commission. Hair said that on orders from superiors, he altered and removed dozens of documents in the governor's case file as the probe into Deal's campaign was pending. Hair told the AJC in an earlier story that he was later fired when he refused an order from the commission's executive director, Holly LaBerge, to remove documents from Deal's case file.
“I don’t know what was going on with the staff within the ethics department,” Deal said. “It is obvious there appears to have been personal agendas that were in place.”
» Read more AJC investigative and watchdog stories
The accusations by Hair and other current and former commission staffers stem from interviews and a pair of whistle-blower lawsuits filed by the commission’s former executive director, Stacey Kalberman, and her deputy, Sherilyn Streicker, claiming they were forced from their jobs in retaliation for investigating Deal. The governor and ethics commissioners reject those claims, and Deal’s attorney said nothing substantive was removed from the ethics file.
Deal’s camp didn’t dispute a separate allegation that his office recruited LaBerge to lead the ethics commission even as it was investigating him, saying the office is frequently consulted before an agency head is hired. But Deal said Wednesday that he was largely in the dark about the inner workings of the commission, which isn’t under his oversight.
“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,” he said before pointing out that “the ethics commission is an independent agency.”
The comments were a contrast to his response to a September report on complaints by current and former commission employees, including staff attorney Elisabeth Murray-Obertein, who said LaBerge met with top Deal aides while the probe was ongoing and boasted of helping the governor by making the complaints "go away."
At the time, Deal blasted the AJC's reporting and said the newspaper would soon sink to a level where it "can't even claim to be a fish wrapper."
In sworn testimony, LaBerge has denied the allegations that she boasted of helping Deal, and her attorney said she would cooperate with any investigation. The scope of that probe remains vague, but it is likely to unfold on at least two different fronts.
The first would be the result of a complaint filed by watchdog activist George Anderson spurred by the AJC report of accusations that aides to Deal recruited LaBerge to lead the commission and that some met with her while the commission’s investigation was in progress.
The state’s Office of the Inspector General has opened a case file based on the complaint. Deron Hicks, who was the inspector general when the complaint was filed, has resigned to take a private-sector job. His deputy, Deb Wallace, is in the job on an interim basis. That puts Deal in the awkward position of appointing his permanent replacement.
Wallace said Wednesday that the case was active but said she could not comment further.
The second would involve the ethics commission’s vote last week to ask Attorney General Sam Olens to appoint a special investigator to examine its conduct in handling the Deal case. The commission has yet to formally ask Olens to take action, and Chairman Kevin Abernethy said Wednesday that the panel was still considering the scope of its request.
While it’s not clear how deep the investigator will dig, Deal said he’s confident the review won’t reopen the complaints against him lodged in 2010. He’s long asserted the probe of more than 1 million of his campaign documents was politically motivated. He was ultimately levied a $3,350 penalty for technical errors, below the $70,000 fine originally recommended by Murray-Obertein.
“My issues and the cases that I have had have already been disposed of by the commission,” he said. “I think the outside investigator will look at the structure within the ethics commission itself.”
About the Author
Greg Bluestein is the Atlanta Journal Constitution's chief political reporter. He is also an author, TV analyst and co-host of the Politically Georgia podcast.
