I want you to think back to the days of “Tom Sawyer” and one of his greatest pranks performed on his friends. Burdened with a chore for skipping school, Tom comes up with an ingenious way to get out of it.
Sidenote: That is before the SJWs got their uppity mitts on that story and declared it racist because THEIR morals say that anything that doesn’t hew to their “presentism” ideology must be banned or torn down.
Side-Sidenote: Presentism – the only thing that matters is how we think and feel right NOW and judge history from it – as opposed to understanding how those back then felt and instead “punishing them” for wrong-think decades or centuries later.
Back on topic, Skip. Last week I received the result of my NH Legislative Ethics Committee complaints against NH State Rep Harry Bean, Travis O’Hara, and the One-Who-Cannot-Be-Named. The former two waived their Confidentiality so that I can name them. The third did not, so I’ll just call him Voldemort (no, not because he’s that evil, but I legally cannot name him – and no “Lord” title for them – though I’m betting that the three of them are thinking of themselves that way).
The official Summary by the Committee for all three of them is effectively whitewashed. Because neither RSA 91-A (Right To Know law that demands that public meetings be properly noticed) nor RSA 24:9-D (the law that regulates the behavior of how NH County delegations made of all the NH House Reps in that County – including how THEY publicly announce their meetings) have penalties for misbehavior, so there can be no unethical behavior.
Even though the Committee stated in the Travis O’Hara summary that the public meetings for which they were on the hook for handling properly were “That fact is uncontested.” From Bean: …it is clear that they were not properly noticed pursuant to RSA 91-A”. A similar language was used for Voldemort.
However:
- In the case of Bean: “In looking at the remedies for violations of 91-A, there is no provision to find an individual culpable of a violation unless they have acted in bad faith. There is no penalty specified in RSA 24 for a violation of RSA 24:9-d”
- In the case of O’Hara: “That law applies no sanctions unless an individual acts in bad faith”
- In the case of Voldermort: ditto
I’ll address that in a bit, but here are the official summaries for the first two.
NH State Rep Harry Bean:
NH Legislative Ethics Committee – Harry Bean exoneration
NH State Rep Travis O’Hara:
NH Legislative Ethics Committee – Travis OHara exonerationNo, I can’t put up the summary for Voldermort because that Rep never waived their confidentiality but if you read the two public ones above, you get the idea.
So what are MY takeaways, as an ordinary citizen trying to act in accordance of Article 8 of the NH Constitution?
…all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.
- Pleading ignorance of the Law gets you a pass. Unlike the rest of us that will end up in court or jail for saying, “I’ve never read the Law in question,” the NH Legislative Ethics Committee accepted the pleas of “I’m stupid and ignorant of the Law and “not my fault.”
- A lack of personal responsibility gives you a pass: “I had no responsibility in carrying out my duties as specified in statute – I’ve been made a victim because it wasn’t my job – somebody else screwed up.”
- Having no penalty in statute gets you a pass.
- And most of all, if it isn’t in member Donna Sytek’s Fook of Unethical Behavior (the question she asked of me, to which my retort was, “I was taught growing up that breaking the Law ITSELF was unethical”).
Now, go look at the image at the top of this post again. Why say you folks?
I wasn’t looking for a criminal conviction – it was my understanding that this was a panel of former and current legislators to judge these three Legislators’ behaviors from an ethical standpoint – above and beyond (and in some cases, below) the Law and not a LEGAL standpoint. But it’s clear that to me, an ordinary citizen, they turned it into that. Do so ONCE, and I can accept “bad faith.” Doing the same behavior, NOT listening to those that are more experienced or reading the actual law to them multiple times?
I now know that I no longer understand what the definition of unethical is.
However, I did send Rich Lambert, the Executive Administrator (for whom I have nothing but good words) a follow-up to see if another action by these three (and other Reps would fall under Donna Sytek’s Book of Unethical Behaviors. They all put in for and accepted the RSA 24:9-eee meeting and mileage fees for these now admitted-to-be-illegal meetings. Given that “this fact is uncontested,” – would not return the County’s money (I have their forms, they all self-signed, as well as the remittances) be considered unethical behavior? I’m betting it isn’t in that Book:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Rich Lambert” <Rich.Lambert@leg.state.nh.us>
Date 6/27/2023 7:46:28 PM
Subject A question for you and the Honorable Sytek’s Book of Unethical behaviorGood evening Mr. Lambert,
I am in receipt of the exonerations of Harry Bean, Travis O’Hara, and <Voldermort>. In reading each, it seems that the wordings for each are a bit tortured in coming to their conclusions.
So be it as the NH Legislative Ethics Committee has made its rulings and exonerated all three even as the Committee found that the illegal meetings are summarized by the Committee’s words of “That fact is uncontested” (Complaint 2023-6, Travis O’Hara, second paragraph).
I have a number of takeaways from that line and those rulings but the main one is that if State Statutes in these cases (e.g., RSA 91-A and RSA 24) does not have associated penalties for bad behavior, there can be no ethical unseemliness. My second main takeaway will remain unstated fully but the phrase “his two remaining brain cells are vying to be in third place” as a line of defense / explanation seems to be acceptable and viable.
So before I spend the time that might well be better spent on more productive efforts, let me ask a question of the Committee’s words: “That fact is uncontested” in that the improperly noticed meetings were illegal. My question:
Would those three, and other Belknap Representatives as well, having put in their self-authorizing forms for the per meeting and travel expenses (RSA 24:9-eee) and accepting such taxpayer monies for the now uncontested illegal meeting be considered to be an unethical action? That having this official ruling about the meetings, not returning the monies for meetings that should never have happened, be considered unethical?
Or would it be a charade to attempt to hold them fully accountable per Article 8 of the NH Constitution?
-Skip
So yes, a “pre-question.” I wonder if I will hear back from:
- Mr. Lambert
- Ned Gordon, Esq (former Rep and Chair of the Committee)
- No one.
