Comments on: Legislators ironing out details of ethics commission proposal

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:06:57 +0000

I would like the committee to have the power to take action, not just refer the matter to a legislative committee. Too much opportunity for dealmaking.

Action should include bans from running for or being appointed to any public position, either for a specified period or permanently. Like a temporary or permanent suspension of a driver’s license.

By: Dr. J

Dr. J — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:50:17 +0000

Commissions of cronies and insiders like this will make no difference, La Politica will laugh in their faces. If the legislators are rally serious about ethics reform (I would say they really aren’t, just playing to the masses) they have to pass a strict law. The law would have to make it clear (and be politician proof) that it would be illegal, a felony, for any person, associated person, or corporate entity or associated corporate entity to do business with the local, county, or state government and contribute money to any politician, politicians’ foundation, or politicians’ PAC. Only that would stop the pay for play corruption that is rampant in NM. Are you really serious legislators? Then introduce and pass that bill and forget the commissions and other ways to reward your contributors and cronies.

By: jivaro99

jivaro99 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:06:39 +0000

True legislation ethics reform must be done by a non-biased panel of an equal amount of members sitting on the panel from each party. Ethics rules need to be set down in writing along with punishments to befit the ethics violation and administered to the letter by the panel.

Without the equality on both sides, there can be no realistic way for anyone to police the elected officials. To give a hand slap for a serious infraction of the rules is tantamount to condoning it.

By: ched macquigg

ched macquigg — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:21:01 +0000

The system for appointing members seems to be based on the supposition that political bias is inevitable, and must therefore be balanced. If “balance” is all they have to offer in terms of guaranteeing principled decision making, we are in a world of hurt.

Our only guarantee of principled decision making is transparent accountability. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

There are exceptions to the Inspection of Public Records Act, and the Open Meetings Act. There are no other exceptions. And certainly not be self-exception.

An ethically redacted process will guarantee due process, regardless of appointment or election of the members of the commission.

Speaking of election; why not?