The NH Legislative Ethics Commission Results Are In … Round 2?

So the last iteration in this series was the NH Legislative Ethics Commission whitewashing the breaking of the Law after they confirmed that the three defendants, Harry Bean, Travis O’Hare, and He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (because of the NHLEC Confidentiality rules), Voldemort. They all  pleaded akin to:

1. 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.”
2. A lack of personal responsibility gets 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.”
3. Having no penalty in statute gets you a pass.
4. 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”).

So I’m betting that these Three Stooges thought this was over – that they they “beat that group” once again. Bean even said that he wanted this all behind him. Well, there’s one more thing (actually, TWO more things – and I’m betting he has no idea what he said). Problem is, if one (or three – or more) have the hubris to think no one’s watching so you can do something that isn’t on the level, sometimes you get caught and there will be a consequence. But before I go through the time to bring Issue #2 up, I figured that I’d try to get an advance read on things. So if you read that post, you’ll know that I contacted Rich Lambert, the Executive Administrator of the NH Legislative Committee Ethics Committee (who has been nothing but gracious) to ask a question:

…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).  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?

And he sent a response:

—— Original Message ——
From “Rich Lambert” < Rich.Lambert@leg.state.nh.us>
To “Skip” < Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/30/2023 2:10:43 PM
Subject RE: A question for you and the Honorable Sytek’s Book of Unethical behavior

Good Afternoon Mr. Murphy,

In my capacity as the Executive Administrator of the Legislative Ethics Committee I am not able to address the questions posed in your email.  I cannot go beyond what the Committee has already stated in their decisions on the 3 complaints.

I trust that you will understand.

Sincerely,

Rich Lambert
Executive Administrator
Legislative Ethics Committee

Totally understandable. However, I have been told that I can be persistent:

From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Rich Lambert <Rich.Lambert@leg.state.nh.us>
Subject: Re[2]: A question for you and the Honorable Sytek’s Book of Unethical behavior

Hi Mr. Lambert!

I understand.

I will ask, however, if you would forward my latter questions to the Chair a la the Legislature asking the NH Supreme Court on advice about a bill:

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?

While you can’t, perhaps he would be willing, in an analogous fashion, to give a bit of advice?

Have a great weekend and Happy Independence Day!

-Skip

And so he did!

—— Original Message ——
From “Rich Lambert” <Rich.Lambert@leg.state.nh.us>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 6/30/2023 3:01:48 PM
Subject RE: Re[2]: A question for you and the Honorable Sytek’s Book of Unethical behavior

Hi Mr. Murphy,

I have forwarded your email messages below to Chairman Gordon.

Rich

So I thanked him. Now, some would tell me that showing folks my hand in this, by publishing this before getting a response, might end up with a witches’ brew of political machinations going on behind the scenes (as some told me before the exoneration, such might have happened in the first place) for Issue #2. So be it but sometimes it is sufficient to publicize what our elected representatives are flaunting in our faces. And while I wanted to see something other an exoneration, I tried as best as I could.

But refusing to Follow the Law in this regard (public notification of government meetings), it’s another thing, in my mind, to take money from Government (which is our money) for something that even the Ethics Committee agreed upon – the meetings were illegal. And no efforts by these three (and others – I have receipts, literally!) to make the people of Belknap County whole financially. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, the amount in question is paltry but that’s neither the point nor the principle.

So let’s see what Ned Gordon, the Chair, has to say about this. Will politics be in play here? Let’s get real – except for me and Mr. Lambert, EVERYone in this deal is a politician. The only way that we will know is either the response (if there is one) or by the result if I move forward (go ahead, tell me what you think the over/under should be for that?).

To be Continued…