Former House Speaker Gene Chandler today got the chance to explain himself before the House Ethics Committee.
He tried to make the committee understand why he didn't report 64,000 dollars in contributions he used for personal expenses.
New Hampshire Public Radio's David Darman has more.
Former Speaker Chandler told the committee he was not engaged in influence pedaling by collecting lobbyist contributions at his annual "Friends of Gene Chandler Corn Roasts".
He told the committee that if he had intended to do that, he wouldn't have done things the way he did them.
if i was trying to hide anything, or if I was trying to do this, this is not the way to go about doing it.
i mean, nothing could have been more public than what we were doing. we mailed out invitations. we had advertisements in the paper, new....news stories regarding the events .. so there was never any attempt.
Chandler said he and other members of his committee didn't think they needed to disclose their fundraising, since he was using the money for personal expenses, and not political purposes.
He said he had formed that opinion after reading a letter from Secretary of State Bill Gardner, though he now admits he may have made a mistake when reading it.
this is not some advice we got on qt, and we just decided to follow it. it was public ....
Chandler did file forms for his committee a couple of times over 7 years.
But he did that only when he was a member of former Speaker Donna Sytek's leadership team.
The woman who asked Chandler to make those filings testified before the Ethics Committee.
Former Deputy Speaker Donnalee Lozeau said she asked Chandler to file because Speaker Sytek believed in full disclosure.
that's how we did things. we reported everything. we told everybody everything. it was about a policy we had set, a tone we were striking. and something that was not just about the speaker, but was about the whole team, and reflected on all of us.
Lamontagne led much of the questioning of witnesses.
He tried to expose inconsistencies in gathering information for both state law and legislative ethics guidelines.
The law, known as RSA 15b, requires lawmakers to file a form that documents contributions with the secretary of state.
The legislative guidelines require reporting of individual contributions that exceed 250 dollars.
Lamontagne asked Secretary of State Bill Gardner whether the form lawmakers had to file included both kinds of information.
when an rsa 15b form completed was filed does anyone in your office review the contents of the form to tell if it was in compliance with the legislative ethics guidelines? NO. do you know if anyone in either the house or senate reviews rsa 15b forms to determine whether or not they were in compliance with legislative ethics guidelines? I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE DOES THAT.
Lamontagne also tried to show that between 1997 and 2004, no one in the Attorney General's office reviewed filings, either.
He showed Senior Assistant Attorney General Bud Fitch a Chandler filing that the former Speaker made to satisfy the reporting law.
But Lamontagne pointed out the filing had not been done correctly and it has never been corrected.
this rsa 15b filing is in error as it is, isn't it? IT IS NOT IN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RSA 15B, THAT'S CORRECT. and who in your office contacted representative chandler to tell him this rsb 15b filing was not in compliance with the statute? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYONE CONTACTING REPRESENATIVE CHANDLER
Lamontagne also asked witnesses about how other office holders had raised funds for personal expenses.
That line of questioning was meant to further explain Chandler's actions in not reporting funds he'd raised.
The reasoning was simply, "it had been done before".
This rationale did not convince Democratic Representative Charles Weed of Keene that Chandler's conduct was excusable.
Weed testified before the committee because he was one of two lawmakers who brought the ethics complaint against the former speaker.
since mr chandler was aware of and discussed the ethical guidlines, apparently believing that they did not apply to the gifts and testimonials to the friends of gene chandler his acceptance of gifts over 250 dollars at least gives the appearance of providing favors to vested special interests. this has caused incalculable harm to the perception of public trust and damaged the reputation of all elected legislators.
The Ethics committee could find that Chandler's conduct is egregious enough to remove him from the legislature, or censure him.
But the committee can only recommend an action to the Legislature, because lawmakers have the final say.
The Ethics Committee hearings are scheduled to reconvene next week.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo