BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – The North Dakota Ethics Commission is considering establishing a penalty for complaints filed in bad faith.
Commissioner Murray Sagsveen during a Wednesday commission meeting proposed adding the penalty as part of a larger update to the commission’s rule process.
“I’ve heard many legislators and others complain about weaponizing the system,” Sagsveen said.
If the executive director determines that a complaint was filed to “harass or impugn the reputation of the respondent” or was otherwise filed for a deceptive purpose, the director will notify the commission, according to his proposal. The commission may then order the complaint filer to demonstrate that the complaint is legitimate.
The filer may respond in writing or request a hearing in front of commission, the amendment says.
If commissioners conclude that the complaint was filed in bad faith, the amendment would permit them to hand down a penalty. The commission could fine the filer up to $500 for first offense and up to $1,000 for each additional offense. The commission could also include a “non-monetary directive” as part of the penalty, it says.
Commissioner Ron Goodman questioned how other state government agencies would respond if the commission moved forward with the proposal. He noted that executive branch officials, including the Attorney General’s Office, have openly questioned the scope of the commission’s ability to impose penalties.
“I realize there’s a risk in adopting this, but I believe that there is a positive public purpose in adopting a rule like this,” Sagsveen said.
The commission approved adding the penalty to a larger list of proposed changes to its complaint rule, but held off on adopting the changes Wednesday. The commission indicated it would take up the matter again during its December meeting.
Also Wednesday, the commission set a special meeting for next week to consider finalizing a letter to the Attorney General’s Office responding to several comments the agency made alleging that the commission had overstepped its authority.
The commission also discussed a request for a legal opinion the Secretary of State’s Office submitted to the Attorney General’s Office seeking clarity on the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction related to issuing advisory opinions.
Commission Chair Cynthia Lindquist said she was disappointed that the Secretary of State’s Office did not notify the commission it was requesting the opinion.
“We’re at odds, and we should not be,” Lindquist said during Wednesday’s meeting. “I’m still trying to figure out, how do we get to the table? Well I don’t know, is there a table anymore?”
Wednesday may have been Sagveen’s last Ethics Commission meeting.
Sagsveen’s term expired in August, but he has continued serving on the board while Gov. Kelly Armstrong and the Senate majority and minority leaders debate whether to reappoint him. The legislators support reappointing Sagsveen, but Armstrong does not.
Armstrong in a letter late Wednesday told Sagsveen he “no longer has consensus” from all three officials to serve past his expired term.
Comments