Louisiana legislators could remove the public’s ability to confidentially or anonymously raise concerns about illegal activity by government employees and elected officials.
The Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 10-4 Wednesday for House Bill 160 from Rep. Kellee Dickerson, R-Denham Springs, despite a warning from the state ethics board that it would have a “chilling effect” on ethics complaints about public employees and leaders. All four lawmakers who voted against the proposal are Republicans.
“The Board regularly receives complaints requesting that the complainant’s identity remain confidential due to fears of retaliation,” state Ethics Administrator David Bordelon wrote in a letter to the committee sent Monday on behalf of ethics board members. “This is seen most often when a complaint is received from an individual who has information regarding a potential violation by a supervisor or their local elected official.”
“The board still supports that during the investigation the complainant should remain confidential,” Bordelon said Wednesday during a legislative hearing on the proposal.
Dickerson’s legislation would require the ethics board to provide the identity of anyone who reported an ethics complaint to the target of the investigation. Currently, the identity of a complainant remains unknown to anyone outside of the ethics board and staff, unless the person chooses to identify themselves.
“If any of you have had to go before the ethics board, it is a very intense process,” Dickerson said Wednesday during the committee hearing. “When you’re brought before the ethics committee, who has quite the reputation … It’s difficult.”
“This is to kind of bring some of those frivolous, if you will, complaints down and to help you face your accuser,” she said.
Dickerson’s legislation would also eliminate the ability to file an ethics complaint against someone anonymously. From 2020-23, the ethics board received 137 anonymous complaints – where the board and staff doesn’t even know the identity of the complainant – that would no longer be allowed.
In her bill, Dickerson said she’s tried to protect those who report ethics violations from retaliation. It includes a provision to allow lawsuits to be filed against anyone who threatens or coerces someone into not raising a concern with the ethics board.
Yet Bordelon said the proposal would also create an inconsistency when it comes to the confidentiality of potential whistleblowers. Dickerson’s bill only eliminates confidentiality for people complaining about government ethics violations. People who report illegal activity related to political campaign fundraising and spending would still be allowed to keep their identity from the target of the investigation, he said.
Dickerson’s bill is also part of a broader effort since Gov. Jeff Landry came into office to weaken the authority of the ethics board and water down anti-corruption laws.
Two other major bills are moving through the Legislature this session that would make it harder to investigate government ethics and political campaign wrongdoing. Last year, Landry and lawmakers passed legislation to allow the governor to have more influence over ethics board appointees.
The ethics board oversees the enforcement of laws related to government corruption, nepotism, lobbying and political campaign finances. It supervises the activities of state and local government, including public employees and elected officials at all levels.
Landry has had several personal disputes with the ethics board dating back to when he became attorney general in 2016. Most recently, he has been in negotiations over ethics charges the board filed against him in 2023 for not disclosing a trip he took to Hawaii on a political donor’s private plane.
On top of eliminating confidential and anonymous complaints, Dickerson’s bill would also create other challenges for launching an ethics investigation.
It limits the materials ethics board members can use to instigate a probe. They would only be able to look into misconduct if an individual filed a formal complaint with the board.
Currently, the board uses a much wider swath of information to launch its investigations. They can initiate inquiries based on state legislative audits, news coverage and required annual reports from the heads of state agencies on potential ethics violations in their departments.
All of those avenues for pursuing an ethics investigation would be cut off if Dickerson’s bill becomes law.
Almost half of the board’s 177 investigations from 2020-23 that resulted in a discovery of wrongdoing came from either a legislative audit (21), one of the annual state agency head reports (44) or a news story (18), according to information provided by the ethics board. None of these investigations would have been launched if Dickerson’s legislation had been in place.
Also, a large number of the ethics complaints would also have to be filed in person at the ethics board’s office in downtown Baton Rouge under Dickerson’s bill. All “non-sworn” complaints from an individual would have to be delivered by hand, and the person would have to present their government-issued identification when dropping it off.
“Sworn” complaints – those made under a legal oath attesting to the truthfulness of its statements – could be delivered by mail, fax or electronic means, under Dickerson’s legislation.
The in-person delivery standard for “non-sworn” complaints would apply to people making complaints about local government officials in all corners of the state. For example, a person who was complaining about potential problems with a local official in Bastrop, in the far northeastern part of the state would have to drive to Baton Rouge to submit their concerns.
From 2020-23, the board received more than four times as many “non-sworn” complaints as sworn ones from the public, according to information the ethics staff provided.
Non-sworn complaints also resulted in the largest number of “findings” of an ethics violation. Out of the 177 cases where the board concluded there was wrongdoing, 52 came from non-sworn complaints during the four-year period.
Voting in favor of the bill: Reps. Michael Bayham, R-Chalmette; Beth Billings, R-Destrehan; Wilford Carter, D-Lake Charles; Ed Larvadain, D-Alexandria; Rodney Lyons, D-Marrero; Denise Marcelle, D-Baton Rouge; Dixon McMakin, R-Baton Rouge; Candance Newell, D-New Orleans; Rodney Schamerhorn, R-Hornbeck; and John Wyble, R-Franklinton.
Voting against the bill: Reps. Les Farnum. R-Sulphur; Foy Gadberry, R-West Monroe; Polly Thomas, R-Metairie; and Mark Wright, R-Covington.