Sharp appointment leaves Ethics Commission makeup in limbo, function suspect, selection process gridlocked
Gov. Kelly Armstrong, Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, and Senate Minority Leader Kathy Hogan, who must all agree upon who will serve on the North Dakota Ethics Commission, still cannot reach consensus on a full slate of new Commissioners. Although they filled one of the three open slots today by appointing former OMB Director Pam Sharp, who is currently listed as an Advisor with Bismarck lobbying firm Integrity Public Affairs, to replace Ward Koeser, whose term expired two months ago.
Sharp certainly appears qualified, but was there no discussion as to whether affiliation with a lobbying firm presents a conflict of interest for someone who will ostensibly be sitting in judgment of the ethical behavior — or lack thereof — of public officials?
As we wrote earlier this week, not ony is the process of replacing Ethics Commission members dragging on, the current function of the Commission is suspect. Prior to today’s appointment, both Koeser and Murray Sagsveen have reportedly continued to function as Commissioners, even though their terms expired August 31. There is no apparent authorization in the law or Constitution for former commissioners to continue to serve until successors are appointed. They’re apparently only to serve until their term is completed.
That, of course, also raises the question of whether any action which may have been taken by the Commission in the past 60 days is valid. Equally important, it raises the question of who made the decision to simply allow two former commissioners to continue to serve, apparently indefinitely, and on what basis.
One down, two to go
The trio seemed pleased with Sharp’s appointment, noting that her experience running the Office of Management and Budget for 15 years (a position she left in 2018) gives her great familiarity with state government. Unasked questions about her lobbying affiliation aside, that also begs the question as to why she wasn’t appointed last week, if agreement on her appointment is mutual.
Reports of last week’s meeting indicated that Hogue had pressed for replacing Koeser, who was not seeking reappointment, at that time but that Armstrong then expressed a desire to appoint all three at once and said he needed the weekend to think about it. If that’s accurate, this week’s meeting apparently accomplished nothing more than Armstrong conceding that point and the group confirming the consensus on one appointee which likely existed last week but simply wasn’t made official.
Armstrong has been critical of Sagsveen, whom he believes has participated in the Commission’s alleged infringement upon executive branch authority, which has him calling for a ”reset” of new blood on the Commission. Others value Sagsveen’s experience and believe that the continuity his reappointment would bring is important. The Ethics Commission, itself, has signaled that it shares that view.
Will Sagsveen, who is the sticking point in the discussions (Armstrong opposes his reappointment while Hogue and Hogan support it) continue to act as a Commissioner despite his expired term and his continued failure to gain the necessary support for reappointment, as the gridlock continues?
Koeser will not, of course, with his spot being filled by Sharp’s appointment, but the scenario still leaves the Commission two members short. The other vacancy was created by the death of former Ethics Commission Chairman Dave Anderson in May. The Commission has operated with that vacancy since but has apparently sought to keep functioning, absent one member, by allowing two former members with expired terms to simply continue to serve, without any apparent legal or Constitutional standing to do so.
That, of course, could become yesterday’s news if the triumvirate agrees on the other two appointments soon. It doesn’t erase the questions, however.
Function, authority of the Ethics Commission suspect
Clearly the Ethics Commission’s current functioning membership is questionable. Its new member may have a conflict of interest. Its mode of operation, including allegedly acting without proper authority, has been questioned previously, both by the Governor and others, as we recounted last week.
Questions only multiply and confidence in the Ethics Commission’s function, makeup, legitimacy and authority appears at an all-time low. How that will affect its future remains to be seen.