Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, speaks during a committee hearing on Jan. 31, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
By: Mary Steurer
BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – A House committee on Monday recommended several sweeping changes to the North Dakota Ethics Commission’s budget, including cutting a new full-time staff member and adding a new six-month deadline for processing ethics complaints.
The commission in a Tuesday statement called the changes “a roadblock intended to hamper the commission’s work.”
The House Appropriations Committee’s Education and Environment Division voted to remove funding for an additional full-time Ethics Commission employee narrowly approved by the Senate.
The employee would focus on public education and communications, bringing the total number of Ethics Commission staff to four.
The Ethics Commission was created by a constitutional amendment approved by North Dakota voters in 2018. That amendment mandates that public education be a part of the Ethics Commission’s work.
While the commission already does some educational programming, the commission’s staff have said they believe they should be doing more.
“This role is critical to the Ethics Commission’s role in supporting an open, ethical and accountable government,” Executive Director Rebecca Binstock previously said in testimony to legislators.
Some lawmakers on Monday said they were not convinced.
Rep. Scott Louser, R-Minot, said appropriations should instead focus on finding solutions to help the commission process its growing number of complaints. As of mid-March, the commission had received 59 complaints this year. The commission also has some complaints that are more than two years old.
“I think the bigger issue here is cleaning up some of the timing messes that are taking up all of the time of the commission,” Louser said.
Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, D-Fargo, was the only member of the committee opposed to removing the education staffer.
Hanson said dedicating an additional employee to education would give the commission’s other staff more time to focus on complaints. She also reasoned that more education would reduce the number of ethics violations the commission must investigate.
The budget set aside about $250,000 for the new staff member. This figure would encompass not only the employee’s two-year salary, but also benefits and other costs.
The committee on Monday also voted 4-3 to remove $50,000 worth of funding for a new case management system for filings with the commission. Commission staff previously testified that the case management system would save them time by helping to automate much of the commission’s recordkeeping.
Rep. Mike Nathe, R-Bismarck, successfully introduced a series of policy changes to the commission’s procedures.
One major change states that each complaint submitted to the commission must be closed within 180 days of its filing. Right now, there is no deadline for processing complaints.
The Ethics Commission in its Tuesday statement said this aspect of the amendment would “overtly restrict its constitutional investigative power.”
Hanson criticized the proposed deadline as unreasonable, especially in light of the committee voting to remove the education employee and case management funding from the budget.
“They have to move things along in a substantially faster way, but without the tools needed to do that,” Hanson said.
Hanson also said the constitutional amendment that created the Ethics Commission stipulates that the Legislature may not pass laws that “hamper, restrict or impair” what the constitutional amendment requires.
“I guess I’d be concerned that there’s the potential that time limit on when a case has to be closed might be construed as hampering, restricting or impairing,” Hanson said.
The same amendment would give the commission the freedom to dismiss complaints at any time. Commission staff have said that for the most part, the person who submits the complaint wields much of the power over when a complaint may be dismissed. This can leave complaints in limbo for long periods of time.
“I don’t think the amendment ties their hands,” Nathe said of his proposals. “If anything, I think it encourages them to move the cases along, quite frankly, for the benefit of the accused.”
Nathe’s amendment also included legal protections for lawmakers who declare conflicts of interest with legislation.
The amendment would make lawmakers immune from prosecution for voting on legislation they have a conflict of interest with if they adhered to legislative conflict of interest rules or the informal advice of an Ethics Commission staff member.
Under Nathe’s proposal, those accused of ethics violations would be allowed to discuss the allegations against them, as well. Current confidentiality requirements forbid this.
Some parts of Nathe’s amendment resurrect policy changes proposed in House Bill 1360, a bill supported by the Ethics Commission that failed in the House. In that bill, the commission sought greater authority over its complaint process and changes to the confidentiality restrictions for those accused of violations.
The amendment also revives elements of a bill sponsored by House Majority Leader Mike Lefor and Senate Majority Leader David Hogue that sought similar protections for lawmakers. Like House Bill 1360, House Bill 1505 included language allowing people accused of violations to discuss complaints against them but did not survive the House.
Hanson on Monday proposed several other amendments, including one recommended by Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo to add five new full time employees to the commission’s staff. Mathern testified the additional staff members are necessary in order to ensure the Ethics Commission can operate effectively.
Hanson also proposed budgeting an additional $150,000 in funding for the commission to hire outside professional services.
The commission’s base budget for professional fees is $70,000. The Senate added $50,000 to this pot of money, bringing the total to $120,000. Hanson sought to increase this to $270,000.
“If we are not going to increase the staff for the Ethics Commission, then we need to enable them to hire third party attorneys or other professional staff to assist them in addressing this backlog,” Hanson said.
Her proposals to give the Ethics Commission more resources did not advance in committee.
She successfully brought an amendment to require the commission to prepare an annual report detailing its activities.
“I thought that an annual report might help provide some transparency, not only for us as decision makers but for the public overall,” Hanson said.
The bill is expected to be discussed Wednesday in House Appropriations.
Also this week, the Senate voted 46-1 in favor of a bill that would require North Dakota officials to file financial disclosure forms annually, rather than only when they are appointed or file to run for office. House Bill 1469 also requires the secretary of state to publish the forms online. The bill was previously approved by the House. The bill was amended in the Senate and returns to the House for consideration.
Comments