The Legislative Ethics Committee has decided to continue its preliminary investigation into the fundraising activities of House Speaker Gene Chandler.
New Hampshire Public Radio's Dan Gorenstein reports.
NHPR's series on Gene Chandler's fundraising earned the 2004 Sigma Delta Chi Award for Radio Investigative Reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists.
The Ethics Committee feels it currently lacks enough time and information to go forward with formal charges.
Acting Ethics Committee Chair Ned Gordon.
"At this point in time, we believe it would be impossible for us to collect all the information we need and hold hearing on formal charges."
Earlier this month the Committee voted unanimously to look into whether Speaker Chandler violated state ethics guidelines.
For the past seven years, a group called the Friends of Gene Chandler has hosted an annual corn roast, raising tens of thousands of dollars from political action committees, lobbyists, corporations and individuals.
Just this year, the event brought in 28 individual contributions between $300-$1000.
The Speaker has admitted, he's used at least some of those contributions to pay for personal expenses.
The state's ethics guidelines prohibit an elected official from receiving gifts of more than $250 dollars from someone with a vested interest in statehouse business.
Speaker Chandler did not attend the meeting, choosing instead to send counsel.
In his written statement attorney Ovide Lamontagne wrote that Speaker Chandler was misinformed, mistaken, or even naﶥ in reporting the activities of the Friends Committee.
And Lamontagne continued there is no evidence to suggest that Speaker Chandler used his office for personal gain at the expense of the public interest.
Lamontagne offered several arguments in Chandler's defense.
But critical to his case is that the Speaker was not alone.
"It's been an event that's reflective of the culture of the legislature has been part of for many years. People have held testimonials, we know the speaker is not the only elected official who received through a friends committee funds that were used to defray expenses associated with his service in office."
Lamontagne is in part referring to Executive Councilor Ruth Griffin, who recently announced she too was using funds from a Friends Committee for personal use.
But the Ethics Committee wants evidence from Lamontagne that others have used Friends Committees.
More specifically, the Committee wants names.
Another question still puzzling the Ethics Committee is what kind of access Speaker Chandler had to the contributions.
Was the bank account held by the Speaker, or by members of the Friends of Gene Chandler Committee?
In the document submitted to the Ethics Committee, attorney Lamontagne writes the contributions were deposited in a bank account maintained by the Friends Committee.
But in an interview last month with New Hampshire Public Radio's Jon Greenberg, the Speaker offered a different account.
Greenberg: "I was wondering about the account itself, was it a separate account that was set up to receive these funds?"
Chandler: "Yes I have a checking account I use just for that purpose."
Greenberg: "So the only money that goes into that account comes from these events"
Chandler: "Right."
Greenberg: "And you are in control of that account?"
Chandler: "Yes."
Greenberg: "And do you keep records of how you actually expended money from these accounts?"
Chandler: "Well you write a check and in the back of the book, but you don't have to report that....when you write a check to Joe Smith you write it in the book. And I think that, yeah, that's all done. That's where it is."
Attorney Lamontagne argued that reporting requirements for non-political fundraisers, such as Friends Committees, are vague and confusing.
However in 1999, at the request of House leadership, then Representative Gene Chandler did report corn roast contributions.
Lamontagne said the Speaker didn't continue to file the receipts because he didn't believe he had to.
That's one argument Ethics Committee Chair Representative Shawn Jasper didn't buy.
As the Committee deliberated in private session, Jasper emerged from the meeting room.
He told reporters he could no longer maintain impartiality, and was recusing himself.
"The evidence I have seen, there were filings in the past, and then there were no filings, clearly there is a lot of money involved, and a lot of different entities contributing for the personal fund. While I don't belive the Speaker was influenced by that, the House as an institution is so important, one person can not put themselves above the institution."
Jasper says he has the greatest respect for the Speaker.
But he went on to say there is now a cloud hanging over the office and believes the Speaker should resign his post.
The Ethics Committee is tentatively scheduled to meet again November 16th.
For NHPR News, I'm DG.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo