Questions about conflicts and managing clean elections push for fresh look at ethics panel’s duties

How important is it for those serving on the Maine Ethics Commission to be above reproach?

Outstanding issues over the qualifications and conduct of Commissioner Jean Ginn Marvin, raised by her failure to disclose connections to a political group, might do worse than just lower expectations for clean government. Unchecked, a compromised commissioner could corrupt the system. Add that Ginn Marvin is apparently exempt from the code she is charged to enforce signals the need for a top-down review of the ethics commission.

The commission dates to post-Watergate reforms that swept the country in the 1970s. Since, it has had periods where “ethics commission” was in name only. After initial enthusiasm for reform, the commission faded into an empty shell.

By the late 1980s, running the commission was a half-time administrative assistant’s job, who was primarily tasked wtih maintaining appearances for the all-but-defunct outfit.

Fortunately, some believed in the need for an ethics watchdog. Their efforts rejuvenated the agency. Within a decade, the commission was rebuilt on a sure foundation to support Maine’s leadership in adopting the Maine Clean Elections Act.

With the act’s arrival, the ethics commission went through a fundamental restructuring. Since Maine was the first state to adopt publicly funded elections, combining ethics enforcement and administering the MCEA was an educated guess. Since, other models have emerged. Some states split these into separate organizations. With the wealth of experience now available, Maine’s initial formulation is due for review. An independent examination to establish best practices would confirm Maine’s national leadership as other states adopt publicly funded elections.

Evaluating the commission’s composition is an integral part of this process. The architects of the MCEA thought it key to de-politicize commissioners.

Why is it problematic to load the commission with former legislators? A politicized commission is like staffing a planning board with developers. A sprinkling may add an industry insider perspective, but an overabundance strains the board’s objectivity.

Sadly, the ideal of having a nonpolitical commission is all but forgotten today. The political leadership in the Legislature nominates candidates. The result is four of the five current commissioners have served in the Legislature.

If the commission is to be politicized, its members must demonstrate exemplary qualifications and conduct. That the commission is a rulemaking body also makes this essential. A compromised commissioner could have systemic consequences beyond corrupting individual cases. So laws governing commissioners must be rigorously enforced. Even the appearance of impropriety has to bring a swift, unequivocal response.

That is why Ginn Marvin’s role as a regulator/rulemaker while also serving as treasurer of a regulated political organization is corrosive. When this was challenged last November, Ethics Commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne said it was acceptable since the ex-legislator had disclosed her ties:

“(Ginn Marvin) was a member of the MHPC (Maine Heritage Policy Center) board when the governor appointed her at the suggestion of the legislative leadership, so apparently the issue was not viewed as a disqualifying conflict at the time of her appointment,” Wayne stated in a November 2006 letter.

Wayne and others have mistakenly thought she had been appropriately “cleared” to serve on the commission because she had completely and truthfully filled out her “qualification-to-serve” form. In reality, Ginn Marvin failed to do so. She omitted her MHPC board membership.

At best, Ginn Marvin sets a bad example in a regulatory framework based on accurate, faithful disclosure. To set this right requires a determination as to whether she is qualified to serve. Also, there are sufficient grounds for believing that Ginn Marvin has engaged in prohibited fundraising activities as MHPC’s treasurer. This demands an investigation. Yet she appears to be exempt from objective inquiry. The independence the commission enjoys from direct oversight now seems to insulate it – and Ginn Marvin – from accountability.

The good that can come of this is an independent review to determine best practices for the ethics commission. Perhaps administration of the MCEA should operate independently. Or, if they remain together, creating a nonpolitical commission may be the way for Maine to lead. Whatever happens, the current situation cannot continue.

If the ethics commission is going to be politicized, then it has got to be policed.

Carl Lindemann is a former journalist and founder of truedialog.org, a not-for-profit government activist organization. He lives in Portland. E-mail him at [email protected].