Jindal vetoes ethics changes
Print
Email
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Gov. Bobby Jindal vetoed two bills Tuesday night that opponents said would have a chilling effect on people filing ethics complaints against public officials.
Jindal struck down House Bill 906, which would have required state ethics officials to disclose to someone accused of wrongdoing the identity of an accuser.
He also stopped Senate Bill 53, which would have forbidden ethics officials from investigating anonymous complaints.
“I am concerned that this requirement may discourage citizens from reporting misconduct for fear of reprisal,” Jindal wrote as his reasoning in both veto messages.
On SB53, Jindal added, “that rejecting anonymous complaints at face value will result in incidents of actual misconduct not being prosecuted.”
The same concerns have led the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and at least 20 states to use anonymous complaints, Jindal wrote in his veto of the bill sponsored by state Sen. Buddy Shaw, R-Shreveport.
Neither Hutter nor Shaw could be reached for comment.
It marked the second time Jindal vetoed the idea of allowing the accused to know who filed a complaint and who provided information. State Rep. Nita Hutter, R-Chalmette, added the provision to legislation during the February ethics special session. It prompted Jindal’s first veto of his term.
Hutter tried again with a separate bill in the regular session just-ended.
The Louisiana Board of Ethics urged Jindal to veto Hutter’s HB906 as one of the board’s last actions prior to 10 of its 11 members resigning.
Jindal also vetoed House Bill 1175, which would have broadened an exception that allows family members of legislators to lobby. To avoid running afoul of the state’s conflict of interest laws, the family member had to have been registered as a lobbyist prior to a legislator’s initial election.
HB1175, sponsored by state Rep. Jack Montoucet, D-Scott, would have allowed that exception to apply if the immediate family member was a registered lobbyist for at least one year prior to Jan. 1, 2009.
“I do not see the need for this legislation,” Jindal wrote.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
