ACLU-NCA Testifies on Ethics Reform Bill

On November 30, ACLU-NCA Legal Director Arthur Spitzer testified before the D.C. Council Committee on Government Operations on the "Board of Ethics and Government Accountability Establishment and Comprehensive Ethics Reform Amendment Act of 2011," calling attention to many due process, free speech, and privacy problems with the bill.

For example, we pointed out that a new felony for a violation of the Code of Conduct that "substantially threatens the public trust" was unconstitutionally vague – who can know in advance what a jury would think "substantially threatens the public trust"? Likewise, how can a government employee be required to certify that he or she had "Diligently engaged in safe-guarding the assets of the taxpayers and the District," when that phrase is undefined? If a lawyer settles a case on terms that someone later feels were improvident, has the lawyer made a false certification for which she can be fired?

We also noted that the bill's prohibition on all political activity by members of the new Ethics Board would be unconstitutional, because the District has no interest in prohibiting members from participation in non-DC political activity, e.g., supporting a candidate for President or contributing to Emily's List or National Right to Life.

We did not testify on the major political issues presented by the bill, such as whether a new Board of Ethics and Accountability should be established, whether Constituent Service Funds should be abolished, or whether Councilmembers should be allowed to earn outside income (i.e., hold other jobs), because we are a civil liberties organization, not a good government organization, and these issues are not civil liberties issues.

The Council is expected to vote on the bill on December 6 and 20.

A copy of our testimony on the "Board of Ethics and Government Accountability Establishment and Comprehensive Ethics Reform Amendment Act of 2011"  is here.