A recent investigation into Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission has revealed significant complaints from individuals about the commission’s effectiveness. Paul Amann, a former assistant attorney general, submitted a complaint that was ignored by the commission for over a year. The commission also faced criticism for hiring outside counsel with connections to the executive and having members with conflicts of interest. In 2018, a bill was passed that aimed to address the grievances raised by Amann’s complaint, including allowing ethics commissions to retain private counsel and providing a process for complainants to protest conflicts of interest. The commission’s 2022 annual report, which has been completed and sent to the governor and Legislature, reveals that it received zero complaints last year, with expenses of $10,000, less than the $14,600 appropriated by the Legislature. However, the report is not publicly available on the commission’s website. The commission’s hands are tied in terms of accepting and reviewing complaints due to the strict statutory parameters set by the Legislature.
Utah’s Executive Ethics Commission: A History of Criticisms and Hurdles
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission has been the subject of criticisms since its creation in 2013. While lawmakers have allocated nearly $50,000 for the commission’s operations over the last decade, it has only investigated two complaints during that time, leading to questions about its effectiveness.
The commission was established in response to two major scandals involving high-ranking government officials. However, its complaint process has been criticized for being difficult to navigate and lacking in transparency. Critics have noted the hurdles that complainants must overcome to submit a complaint and have it considered, which has resulted in a lack of accountability for elected officials.
Paul Amann, the first person to have a complaint reviewed by the commission, called for an audit of the commission in 2018, stating that the commission had failed in its goal of effectively handling ethics complaints. The commission’s operations have been supplemented with nearly $50,000 from the legislature over the years, but annual reports show that the commission has only heard two complaints, neither of which seemed to have been found to have merit and referred to the Legislature for potential action.
The commission’s history of functional failures has further eroded public trust in its effectiveness. For almost two years, the commission operated with only two of its five statutorily required members. While a spokesperson for Governor Spencer Cox initially defended the commission’s lack of quorum by stating that it hadn’t investigated a complaint since 2021, critics argue that the lack of members compromises the commission’s ability to operate as intended.
Despite its shortcomings, the Executive Branch Ethics Commission remains an important tool in holding elected officials accountable. However, its processes and transparency must be improved to restore public trust and ensure that elected officials are held to the highest ethical standards.
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission Faces Criticism for Lack of Transparency
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission has come under fire for its lack of transparency and accessibility. Despite receiving nearly $50,000 in funding from the legislature, the commission has only investigated two complaints since its creation in 2013. Critics argue that the hurdles for submitting a complaint are too high, and the commission lacks transparency in its processes.
Governor Spencer Cox responded to recent criticism of the commission’s lack of quorum on Twitter, acknowledging the problem and promising to address it immediately. New members were appointed the next day, but other issues pointed out in the article remain unfixed.
Utah code requires the commission to post a conspicuous and clearly identified link to the name and address of a person authorized to accept a complaint on behalf of the commission. While the commission’s executive director’s name is listed on the website, there is no address at which to send complaints.
The commission’s lack of a phone number or physical address for receiving complaints sets it apart from other ethics commissions in the state, all of which provide a phone number and physical address for contact. The only way to contact the commission is through email, which some critics argue is not sufficient.
The nonoperational phone number has been brought to the attention of the governor’s office and the legislature before, but no action has been taken to rectify the problem. The lack of transparency and accessibility of the commission’s complaint process has eroded public trust in its effectiveness in holding elected officials accountable.
Executive Director Justin Atwater has expressed a need for administrative solutions to help constituents contact the commission. While the commission serves an important function in ensuring that elected officials are held to the highest ethical standards, its processes must be improved to restore public trust. A more accessible and transparent complaint process would go a long way in achieving that goal.
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission Criticized for Communication and Accessibility Issues
The Executive Branch Ethics Commission in Utah has come under fire for its communication and accessibility issues. The commission has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and the difficulty in submitting complaints. While the commission prefers that all complaints come through email, there have been concerns about email accessibility and security.
The Department of Government Operations has been working to address the communication issues faced by the commission. While the commission is receiving a software-based phone in the coming days, there is no mechanism for mail to be sent to a secured location where only the commission can access it. This means that there is a risk that information could be unintentionally disclosed or compromised.
The commission’s executive director, Justin Atwater, has emphasized the importance of ensuring that all complaints come through the same pathway to meet statutory deadlines and fulfill its duties. While Atwater prefers that complaints come through email, he is willing to make additional accommodations to facilitate the complaint process.
One of the issues brought up by critics is the time it takes for the commission to respond to complaints. In front of the Legislative Management Committee, Paul Amann raised concerns about the commission’s responsiveness. He submitted his complaint through both email and by hand, but it took a long time for the commission to respond.
While the commission has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accessibility, Atwater has assured the public that the commission is fully functioning and up-to-date. The commission’s preference for email submissions is aimed at ensuring that all complaints are handled efficiently and effectively. However, there is still room for improvement to ensure that the commission is accessible to all Utah residents.
The Department of Government Operations is working to address the communication and accessibility issues faced by the commission. With the implementation of a software-based phone system, the commission will be better equipped to handle complaints and respond to concerns. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the commission is accessible to all residents and that complaints are handled in a timely and effective manner.
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission criticized for hurdles in reporting process
Since its creation in 2013, Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission has only investigated two complaints, despite nearly $50,000 spent by lawmakers in the last decade. The independent oversight group was established to consider allegations against elected members of the executive branch. However, critics have raised concerns regarding the hurdles in the complaint process and lack of transparency.
One of the complaints was submitted by Paul Amann, a former assistant attorney general, who spent over a year in the ethics complaint process. He submitted his initial complaint in September 2016, which took two months for the commission to accept, in contravention of state statute that requires a decision to be made within five days of initial receipt. He further alleged that there were other lengthy delays throughout the review process, which ended in 2017. Amann also claimed that numerous commission members had conflicts of interest and that outside counsel hired by the commission had connections to the executive. Portions of Amann’s complaint are now part of an ongoing federal lawsuit against the executive.
Amann’s complaint prompted criticisms of the commission’s complaint process, particularly its effectiveness, and a lack of transparency. Furthermore, the criticisms stem from the hurdles that have to be surmounted to submit a complaint and have it considered, while the commission’s operations have been supplemented with nearly $50,000 from the Legislature in the past decade. The Legislative Ethics Commission, the Political Subdivisions Ethics Commission, and the Judicial Conduct Commission, however, have phone numbers through which the public may contact them. Both the Legislative Ethics and Judicial Conduct commissions have physical addresses where they can receive complaints.
The Executive Branch Ethics Commission’s website lists its Executive Director Justin Atwater’s name as a person authorized to accept a complaint on behalf of the commission, but there is no address at which to send complaints. There is also no physical address listed for the commission. The only way to contact the commission is through the email [email protected], according to its website.
The executive director added that he “will always” respond to emails and is willing to facilitate additional accommodations. Atwater said the commission prefers that all complaints come through the same pathway – email – to ensure it meets statutory deadlines and fulfills its duties.
In 2018, Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, introduced a bill that made changes to how the commission operates. Bramble said he was involved in establishing the ethics commission in 2013, and he has helped fine-tune it along the way. However, issues pointed out in the article, such as the absence of a functioning phone number, have not yet been fixed.
Changes to Utah’s Ethics Commission
Utah’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission was created in 2013, but it has faced criticism from both sides. One complaint, brought by former assistant attorney general Paul Amann, alleged conflicts of interest and lengthy delays in the review process. Bramble’s 2018 bill, which passed both the Senate and the House unanimously, aimed to address these grievances while ensuring independence. However, two portions of the bill faced opposition: the requirement that complainants have “personal” knowledge and limiting complaints to conduct that would constitute grounds for impeachment under the Utah Constitution.
Initial Criticism of the Commission
The commission’s original bill faced opposition from former Democratic Sen. Jim Dabakis, who disliked provisions that included dismissing complaints if details were leaked to the press. Matt Lyon, then the executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, criticized the bill as a stunt.
Bramble’s Bill Addresses Amann’s Complaints
Bramble’s bill addressed Amann’s complaints by allowing the ethics commissions to retain private counsel and by providing a way for complainants to protest conflicts of interest. The bill also raised the knowledge standard from “actual” to “personal,” which both Amann and Chase Thomas, policy and advocacy counsel for Alliance for a Better Utah, felt was too restrictive. Bramble defended the standard, saying that ethics complaints can have severe consequences and should be taken seriously.
No New Complaints
The commission’s website lists no new complaints, and executive director Justin Atwater has said that every review conducted since he became director has been complete and fair. The commission prefers complaints to come through email, but there have been concerns over the lack of a physical address or functional phone number. The Department of Government Operations has promised to provide a software-based phone in the near future.
Executive Branch Ethics Commission reports no complaints in 2022
The Executive Branch Ethics Commission, responsible for overseeing ethical behavior by elected officials and staff in the executive branch of Utah’s state government, did not receive any complaints in 2022. While the exact number of complaints is not publicly available on its website, the report has been sent to the governor and the Legislature.
According to the annual report, the commission’s expenses for 2022 amounted to $10,000, less than the $14,600 allocated by the Legislature. The expenses covered per diem, staff compensation, and costs related to commission business. The Legislature has appropriated $9,500 for the ethics commission in 2023.
Executive director Brent Atwater stated that the commission is bound to comply with strict statutory requirements and cannot step outside those boundaries, even if the public desires it. If the Legislature wants to expand the commission’s role beyond its current mandate, it must make the necessary statutory changes.
The annual reports for Utah’s other ethics commissions, the Legislative Ethics Commission and the Judicial Conduct Commission, have been posted online.
Don’t miss interesting posts on Famousbio
