Ethics complaint against governor dropped without investigation

AP State Wire ^ | October 28, 2005 | TOM CHORNEAU

[Amerigomag]

SACRAMENTO (AP) - The state's political watchdog agency has closed an ethics complaint into Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's magazine consulting contract without conducting any investigation into whether the agreement violated conflict of interest laws, according to documents released Friday.

The Fair Political Practices Commission concluded that there is no provision in state law that allows the agency to sanction a statewide elected official - such as the governor or the Attorney General - for conflict of interest. Therefore, they reasoned, the agency had no reason to carry out a probe into the question, documents obtained by The Associated Press under the California Public Records Act show.

The terse one-page Oct. 4 letter from Mark Krausse, executive director of the FPPC, .... noted:

The law provides sanctions for conflict of interest violations, but also says, in another section, that the law "shall not be applicable to elected state officers for violations of section 87100, the conflict of interest provisions," wrote Krausse. "The Fair Political Practices Commission is therefore unable to proceed with this investigation."

[Carry_Okie]

Bizarro.

So is the FPPC only able to investigate State employees? What good is it if "state officers" are exempt? Does that include the legislature?

[Amerigomag]

I assume enforcement only applies to state-wide elected officials. Members of the Senate, Assembly and countless other state and local officials are not subject to "state-wide" election.

Under this interpretation only a few standing, elected officials would be exempt from the consequences of a violation of this law during their campaign: Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner State Controller and California Supreme Court Justices.

By the same token, all loosing candidates in statewide elections apparently could be subject to consequences if their campaign practices were found to be in violation of the Section 87100.

Truly bazaar if correct but I suspicion that I'm missing a fundamental, simple explanation for the exemptions from Section 87100.

[Amerigomag]

Found the answer.

If the conflict of interest is derived from campaign contributions (Section 84308) then the following exemption applies:

Elected state officers, judges, and members of local government agencies who are directly elected by the voters (e.g., board of supervisors, city council, school board) are exempt from Section 84308 when they are acting as members of the agency to which they are elected.

Members of the Assembly and Senate are not exempt.

[Carry_Okie]

Unbelievable.

As if administrative government was immune from political effluence.

[Amerigomag]

All state officials are required to excuse themselves from any matter pending before them in their official capacity if conflicts exists under Section 84308 but there are no penalties that the FPPC can impose on the excluded class of officals if a member of that class refuses to do so.

It will come as no surprise that the 5 commissioners of The FPPC are appointed by the Governor (2 commissioners), Secretary of State (1 commissioner), Attorney General (1 commissioner), State Controller (1 commissioner) and occasionally the State Controller, all members of the exempt class.

[SierraWasp]

"political effluence."

Oh! So that's what's stinkin up CA's Crapitol!!!

[Carry_Okie]

What is curious to me is that the legislature passed a law to which they were applicable but constitutional officers were not.

[Czar]

Just like our Washington crapweasels who long ago began including a provision in legislation exempting themselves (House and Senate) from the reach of the laws they are applying to everyone else.

And these fools wonder why they are held in such contempt by the voters.