Whining appointee proposes setting back LA ethics law

If there ever seemed to be a man unhappy in his voluntarily-accepted job, it is Frank Simoneaux, current chairman of Louisiana’s Board of Ethics. Proclaiming ethics administration has become “crippled”, dispassionate investigation reveals the only “crippling” threat comes from Simoneaux’s constant yawping in favor of interjecting more politics and favoritism and less professionalism into the process.

Naturally, Simoneaux complains, as he has for some time, about the changes brought a year ago to the functions of the commission he heads. Prior to his joining, the board’s powers were changed by removing its adjudication function, leaving only with the power to bring charges. Now administrative law judges decide, the products of which the law states must be accepted by the Board.

The advantages of such a system, considered best practice in the ethics administration literature, over the previous are legion and well-known: rather than have political appointees without any necessary legal training or following legal advice render decisions, randomly-chosen civil servants insulated from political forces with law degrees and specialized legal training in this area of law decide. It’s worth noting that, under the previous system, in no other place in Louisiana jurisprudence outside adjudication for civil servants did any one body have the power to be all of the prosecutor, judge, and jury.

How anybody could assert that the change could create such an inferior situation only can be explained by understanding the real motive behind it of the pursuit of power and privilege: bringing back some version of the previous situation would give more of that to appointees like Simoneaux. Wholesale revisions of the nature suggested by him clearly would not be in the public interest.

Regardless, this does not mean that some review and perhaps tinkering at the margins may not have any value. Simoneaux recommends that the Legislature request the Louisiana State Law Institute to review the current law. Why not? By the time the request is made next year and the Institute accomplishes it, there will have been enough time to render initial judgments on the workability of the new system.

Also, as suggested by the more temperate Board member Scott Schneider, perhaps the board could have more input on interpretations, rather than utilizing cases with actual controversy concerning the law. Finally, maybe the board could be given an expanded appellate role. Instead of mandating that it sign off on any decision, if a majority of it contests a ruling made by the initial three-judge panel, three of the four remaining judges could be impaneled to review the initial ruling.
But acquiescing to Simoneaux’s power-aggrandizing demands does not serve the goal of better ethics enforcement. If he’s so upset about all of this, perhaps he should heed the advice of House Speaker Jim Tucker and resign the post he thinks is so worthless. His expressed attitude indicates he won’t be missed by those interested in high ethical standards.