Committee Informally Resolves Ethics Complaint Against House Dem Leader

Print More

Facebook photo

Rep. Douglas Ley, D-Jaffrey.

By NANCY WEST, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD – The Legislative Ethics Committee has informally resolved a complaint against Rep. Douglas A. Ley alleging he failed to recuse himself from voting on union-related legislation while president of the American Federation of Teachers-NH.

The Committee found three of the four complaints would be ethical violations by Ley, D-Jaffrey, who serves as the House Democratic Leader. The resolution became public in the form of a letter from Committee Chairman Ned Gordon to Ley that is posted on the House website’s Nov. 8 Calendar.

The decision angered House Republican Leader Dick Hinch.

The Committee’s letter said: “As stated previously, there is no bright line set out in the Ethics Guidelines establishing when recusal is required. Perhaps that is a matter for the Legislature to address in the future.”

“The Committee will also accept your representation that you did not intentionally violate any principle or rule. Therefore, the Committee proposes to resolve this Complaint through informal resolution, provided that you agree that, as long as you are employed as president of or as an advocate for AFT-NH, you will properly recuse yourself from participating in any legislative activities which may have a direct benefit to your employer or to the union membership,” the Committee told Ley.

 The Committee also expressed concern that someone leaked the complaint when it was considered confidential, adding it is a misdemeanor and the Committee has no statutory authority to file such a charge.

Ley said he doesn’t want to file a criminal charge.

 “I am pleased with the Ethics Committee’s findings and I appreciate their professional and careful work on this subject,” Ley said in an email Friday.

“While I have always been transparent about my job and my work as a legislator, as the Committee stated in their conclusion the rules & guidelines are not always clear, and ‘there is no bright line set out in the Ethics Guidelines establishing when recusal is required.’” 

 Ley said he was pleased the Committee found no willful misconduct, but added that in order to avoid any future conflict of interest, he has agreed to refrain from involving himself in any legislation that has a direct impact on labor unions while serving as president of the American Federation of Teachers-New Hampshire.

“With this now behind me I look forward to getting back to the important work of making a New Hampshire that works for all Granite Staters,” Ley said.

Rep. Hinch said the Committee’s decision to resolve the complaint without formal sanctions doesn’t excuse the fact that it “found a litany of questionable activity and votes by the Majority Leader that appear to have been in violation of ethics guidelines.”

“The Speaker of the House should see how poorly this reflects on his administration and the House, to have a ruling of this nature against his top lieutenant,” Hinch said. “This is just another example of a double standard in the House of Representatives when the Speaker allows people in his inner circle to continue to serve in leadership roles, while he punishes Republicans for relatively minor infractions. Let’s get serious.”

Hinch quoted from the Committee’s findings in a news release saying the Ethics Committee found several examples of violations of ethics guidelines by Rep. Ley (emphasis added):

Example #1: 2017 bill relative to Right to Work. In this case, it is alleged that you disclosed you had an interest in the legislation but announced that you would participate and vote. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect on your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).

Example #2: For HB 438 (2018) Hearing House Labor: Eliminating Automatic Union Dues for State Employees. It is alleged that you voted on this legislation which directly affected the interests of your employer. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect on your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).

Example #3: HB 1405 (2018) Heard in House Labor. Requiring school district personnel to be eligible for Family and Medical Leave Act. It is alleged that you did not vote on this legislation on the House floor but participated in committee. If this legislation was about the Family and Medical Leave Act in general, it would not be a problem. But, being directed at school district personnel, it would provide a specific benefit for your union members. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect upon your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).

In addition the Committee found that violations may have occurred if/when Rep. Ley signed in in favor of or in opposition to legislation representing his employer, AFT-NH, on “blue sheets” at public hearings on legislation, Hinch wrote.

Comments are closed.