North Dakota Administrative Code Title 115 - North Dakota Ethics Commission
Overview: What is Title 115
Title 115 of the North Dakota Administrative Code sets out the rules adopted by the State Ethics Commission under Article XIV of the North Dakota Constitution and related statutes. The Ethics Commission’s mission is to promote transparency, accountability, and ethics in state government.
Through Title 115, the Commission has rules regarding:
Complaints (Article 115‑02)
Gifts (Article 115‑03)
Conflicts of Interest (Article 115‑04)
Quasi‑judicial proceedings and appearance of bias (Article 115‑05)
Jurisdiction and Definitions
Definitions (Section 115‑02‑01‑01)
This section defines important terms:
“Complaint” means an allegation (written or verbal) that a lobbyist, public official, candidate, political committee, or contributor violated Article XIV, laws, or rules on transparency, corruption, elections or lobbying.
“Complainant” means someone who submits a complaint and must be one of:
a) a North Dakota resident, or
b) someone licensed by a state agency or other public official under the commission’s jurisdiction, or
c) a party to a state quasi‑judicial proceeding.
“Anonymous complaint” means one submitted without name or contact info; such complaints are treated differently.
Jurisdiction (Section 115‑02‑01‑02)
Key points on who/what the Commission can investigate:
Who is under jurisdiction: lobbyists; public officials; candidates for statewide or legislative office; elected or appointed officials in the state’s executive or legislative branch; members of the governor’s cabinet; members of the Ethics Commission itself; and legislative branch employees.
What the Commission cannot do: It has no authority over
• local officials (cities, counties, political subdivisions),
• judicial branch employees or judicial officials,
• pure personnel matters (appointments, promotions, suspensions, dismissals, harassment, discrimination) when other remedies exist.
Time limits: A complaint must be filed within 3 years of the date of the alleged violation. Also, violations before January 5, 2019 (when Article XIV took effect) are not considered.
Complaint Submission Process (Section 115‑02‑01‑03)
Here’s how a complaint is submitted and processed:
Who can submit, and how: Any individual may submit a complaint alleging a violation. Methods include a confidential hotline, written/oral/electronic submissions. No particular format required.
Initial sufficiency review by the Executive Director:
If the complaint is within Commission jurisdiction and has enough information to believe a violation might have occurred → the complaint is summarized and respondent is notified.
If it fails these, it may be summarily dismissed. Grounds for dismissal include: not in jurisdiction; insufficient identification of a possible violation; or non‑compliance with Commission rules.
Appeal from summary dismissal:
The complainant may appeal a summary dismissal in writing within a set period (e.g. thirty days once the current rules apply).
Respondent then may respond; the Commission considers documents submitted; no oral argument for this appeal.
Referral to other agencies or law enforcement:
If the matter is under another agency’s jurisdiction, it may be referred.
If there is possible criminal conduct, the Commission coordinates with law enforcement, potentially pausing its own process if prosecution proceeds.
Reporting: Executive Director must report summary dismissals or referrals to the full Commission at its next regular meeting. The Commission votes whether to reopen dismissed complaints.
Quasi‑Judicial Proceedings & Appearance of Bias (Article 115‑05)
Public officials involved in quasi‑judicial proceedings (those similar to court proceedings but not actual courts) must disclose potential appearances of bias.
They must file a bias disclosure form that explains facts that could create an appearance of bias, including whether campaign monetary or in‑kind support is involved, the issues of the proceeding, whether the potential bias involves a party, etc.
The disclosure must be documented, recusal if needed must be recorded in minutes, the Ethics Commission reviews the form.
Limitations, Current Debates, and Real‑World Application
Limits on Enforcement / Penalties
There is ongoing debate in North Dakota about how much power the Ethics Commission has to impose penalties. Some state leaders argue the Commission lacks explicit constitutional authority to create or impose punitive penalties for ethics violations.
The Commission claims that its enforcement authority is implicit in the constitutional amendment that created it. These ambiguities are sources of legislative and legal tension.
Case Example: Jason Dockter
One of the most concrete, recent examples:
Complaints were filed about State Rep. Jason Dockter involving a building lease deal in which he had pecuniary interests and voted on related appropriations.
In 2025, the Ethics Commission made its first finding of ethics violations in his case under its conflict of interest rules: two violations from his votes.
Meanwhile, a Burleigh County jury convicted him of a misdemeanor for “speculating or wagering on official action” (i.e. taking official action benefiting his interest).
This example shows how complaints, ethics rules, and criminal law can overlap. The Commission’s process led to a finding, but criminal law proceeded separately via court.
Weaknesses Noted in Practice
Many complaints are summarily dismissed because they fall outside jurisdiction or lack sufficient detail. The Commission can’t investigate everything that might seem ethically questionable if rules don’t allow.
Some people are reluctant to file formal complaints (especially non‑anonymous ones), since anonymity or confidentiality is limited.
Case Law and Legal Interpretation
So far, in my research I did not find many published court opinions that deeply interpret Title 115 (i.e. cases explicitly reviewing Commission rules, definitions, jurisdiction under Title 115) in the way higher courts interpret statutes. The Dockter example is more an ethics‑commission finding plus criminal proceeding rather than a court interpreting Title 115 rules in a published appellate opinion.
Also, in public reporting, state leaders are challenging or clarifying the scope of the Commission’s power, especially around penalties, enforcement, but those are legislative or constitutional debates rather than finalized court rulings (as of the latest info I saw).
Key Takeaways & Practical Implications
If you are a public official, candidate, or lobbyist in North Dakota, Title 115 sets binding rules about transparency, gift restrictions, conflicts of interest, and when quasi‑judicial bias must be disclosed.
To trigger the Commission’s investigatory powers, someone must generally file a valid complaint within 3 years, and the matter must lie within the definitions and jurisdiction spelled out in Title 115.
The Commission does not handle local officials or judicial branch officials, or many personnel grievances.
Enforcement can lead to findings of violations, but imposing penalties is a grey area: criminal law handles some violations; ethics rules may result in non‑criminal sanctions (depending on what the rules/statutes allow), but courts or the Legislature may need to clarify or expand the power.
Transparency and procedural fairness (rights to respond, good notice, disclosure of bias, appeals of summary dismissals) are built into the rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments