Wisconsin Administrative Code Ethics Commission
Key Provisions of ETH 21: Practice and Procedure
1. Definitions (ETH 21.02)
This section provides essential definitions, including:
"Probable cause": Facts and circumstances sufficient to justify a reasonable person to believe the matter is probably true.
"Reasonable suspicion": Specific facts that warrant further investigation.
"Respondent": An individual alleged to have violated ethics laws.
"Staff counsel": An employee designated to serve as legal counsel for the Commission.
2. Filing and Acknowledgement of Complaints (ETH 21.03 & ETH 21.04)
Complaints must be filed in writing and meet specific criteria. Upon receipt, the Administrator reviews the complaint:
ETH 21.03(2): Determines if the complaint states a violation within the Commission's jurisdiction.
ETH 21.04: If sufficient, the Administrator acknowledges receipt and informs the complainant of the next steps.
3. Preliminary Requests for Information (ETH 21.06)
Before determining reasonable suspicion, the Administrator may request:
Campaign registration statements and finance reports.
Documentation related to specific statutes.
Public records or other publicly available information.
4. Requests for Written Advice (ETH 21.30)
Individuals may seek formal or informal advisory opinions:
Informal Opinion: Issued by the Administrator based on existing law.
Formal Opinion: Issued by the Commission with a hearing, anonymized, and published online. Both types have the force of law if followed.
Case Law and Precedents
Barker v. State of Wisconsin Ethics Board (1993)
In this federal case, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin's ethics laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court upheld the ethics laws, affirming the state's interest in maintaining ethical standards in government. This case reinforced the Commission's authority to enforce ethics regulations.
Recent Complaints and Dismissals
In 2023, complaints against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz for campaign comments were dismissed by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. The Commission found no ethical violations, highlighting the importance of context and intent in evaluating potential breaches. AP News
Enforcement and Confidentiality
The Ethics Commission reviews each complaint to determine if it states a violation within its jurisdiction and satisfies the criteria for a proper complaint. If the complaint does not meet these requirements, the Commission may notify the complainant of the deficiencies. Once a complaint is deemed sufficient, the Commission Administrator assigns it to a staff member for initial inquiries and assigns a complaint ID. The Commission is required by law to keep its actions regarding the complaint confidential.
Conclusion
The Wisconsin Administrative Code, particularly Chapter ETH 21, establishes a structured framework for the Ethics Commission to uphold ethical standards in state government. Through defined procedures for filing complaints, requesting advice, and conducting investigations, the Commission ensures accountability and transparency. Case law, such as Barker v. State of Wisconsin Ethics Board, underscores the constitutional foundation of these regulations. Recent dismissals, like that of Justice Protasiewicz's campaign comments, demonstrate the Commission's careful consideration of context in its decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments