Representative Gene Chandler has admitted violating legislative ethical guidelines and state campaign finance laws.
But that admission had little effect on the investigation of Chandler and other elected officials.
New Hampshire Public Radio's Dan Gorenstein reports.
Late in 2004, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee charged former House Speaker Gene Chandler with three violations.
That he accepted personal contributions over $250 dollars from individuals with statehouse business.
That he used his elected position to secure those funds.
And that he failed to report those so-called gifts in a timely manner.
In a letter to the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee this week, Chandler admitted that he used his position to raise funds from people with business before the state.
The letter added, however, that Chandler did not knowingly or willfully violate any guidelines or laws.
The Ethics Committee had planned a formal hearing next week to determine Chandler's guilt or innocence.
But that date was set assuming the Attorney General's Office would have completed its investigation of Chandler.
Ethics Committee Chair Ned Gordon says the Committee must be patient.
T.19
:37 that report may have new information the committee hasn't considered. Before we take any action, we thought it would be important to take the AG's feel as to if there were specific criminal violations or other activities which should be sanctioned.
The Committee has rescheduled the hearing for January 28th.
Ethics Chair Gordon says he hopes three weeks is sufficient for the Attorney Generals Office to complete its report.
But Attorney General Kelly Ayote says she won't make any promises.
Track 1
2:28 right now it's being handled by my office, there are substantial resources dedicated to it, however, I can't give a date certain, b/c I want to ensure it's done thoroughly...I can tell you we are moving as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, Chandler's attorney is pushing the Ethics Committee to resolve the matter informally rather than through a hearing.
A key difference between the two options is that in the hearing new information could come out, and the Committee could adjust its charges accordingly.
If the Committee decided to pursue an informal resolution no new information would be permitted.
Those types of details don't interest Deputy House Speaker Ken Weyler so much.
As one of the people who filed the original ethics complaint against Chandler, what does concern him is that the former Speaker receive more than a slap on the wrist.
T. 20
:40 if the public's perception is if there is no punishment for violating ethics than what are you people standing for? I don't like to be under that cloud.
The Ethics Committee has a few options in how it resolves the Chandler case.
It can reprimand the Representative, it can censure him, or it can recommend expulsion.
The full House would have to vote on that final option.
Representative David Hess, who served on Chandler's leadership team, doesn't believe Chandler's actions warrant such an extreme measure.
But he does believe that the process must continue even though Chandler dropped out of the race for Speaker.
:23 I don't think you can just say ok, we've gotten this far, things have happened and we can go this and go home. I think the committee has an obligation to continue on with the process and resolve it in one form or another.
Representative Chandler is the first person in the ten year history of the Ethics Committee to be charged with wrongly accepting gifts.
For NHPR News, I'm DG.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo