Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives
    Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives
    Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives
    Ebook81 pages1 hour

    Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives

    By Roberto Miguel Rodriguez

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Analysis of the ethical environment in the Minnesota legislature, including both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Ethical cases filed against members of both bodies and their resolution and consequences.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherLulu.com
    Release dateAug 23, 2016
    ISBN9781365348983
    Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives

    Read more from Roberto Miguel Rodriguez

    Related to Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives

    Related ebooks

    Reference For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives - Roberto Miguel Rodriguez

      Examining the Evolving Ethical Environment Within the Minnesota State Senate and House of Representatives

      EXAMINING THE EVOLVING ETHICAL ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE MINNESOTA SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      Abstract

      The ethics committees in both the Minnesota Senate and the Minnesota House of Representatives were created in the biennial session 2009-2010. Before their existence, any ethical violation was discussed by the whole body of the Senate or the House. This is the first analysis ever made about the performance of such committees, or of the ethical cases in the Minnesota legislature since records started to be kept about such issues in 1986. This paper analyzed a total of 34 ethical cases in the period 1986-2015, involving 20 senators, 13 members of the House and one lobbyist. The study concluded that the ethics committees in most cases are not playing a leadership role but are slow in making determinations and decisions with the result that by the time it is ready to make a decision, if the legislator is guilty, usually she has already resigned her positions of leadership in the different committees or even resigned from the legislature. The paper recommends that the ethics committees adopt a more proactive role.

      Table of Contents

      CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

      Purpose of the Research

      Significance of the Study

      CHAPTER II – LITERATURE REVIEW

      The Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

      The Board issued the required annual reports

      The Board can impose penalties, but never does so

      CHAPTER III – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

      Methodology

      CHAPTER IV – DISCUSSION

      CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS

      REFERENCES

      CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

      Ethics in public administration has become an important topic since the U.S. government adopted a Code of Ethics applicable to all federal employees on July 11, 1958. It is possible that ethics might have been important before, but no formal code existed, ate least not one that covered all federal employees until that date. This first effort at the national level was followed by the adoption of relatively similar codes throughout the states and by local governments. In the state of Minnesota, the ethical behavior of the members of the state executive branch is regulated by laws and not by a code of ethics. As early as 1981, the House of Representatives approved Minnesota Statutes 43A.38, which specifies which conduct is or is not appropriate on the part of people working for the state government. These statutes have been modified several times since they were initially passed. Amendments were approved in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1997, 2008 and 2009 (2015 Minn. Stat. Sec. 43A.38). These statutes, however, are applicable only to state government employees, to the state executive branch, but not to the members of the legislative body which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives, none of which had a code of ethics until 2009-2010.

      In addition, the Minnesota legislature has been passing specialized codes of ethics for individuals’ subject to license such as registered nurses, alcohol and drug counselors, insurance agents, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, school administrators and others. The Minnesota Management and Budget agency also has addressed ethical issues by issuing policies which are applicable to all state employees. Article IV, Section 7, of the Minnesota Constitution gives the Minnesota legislature the power to oversee the ethical behavior of its members for disorderly behavior and gives both the Senate and the House the power to expel one of its members with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the body. The Senate and the House have separate ethics committees. The Senate committee is called the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct. The House’s committee is just called the House ethics committee. The Senate’s ethics committee came into force as a result of Senate Rule 55 and the House’s as a result of House Rule 6.10. Both committees have basically the same functions and responsibilities. In this work, both committees will be called the ethics committee, although a distinction will be made as to whether the case took place in the Senate or in the House.

      In the same biennial session, both legislative bodies passed regulations authorizing the creation of an ethics committee and the manner in which it will be formed. The ethics committee would be created among a list of members proposed by the Speaker which must include representatives from all the standing committees, divisions and caucuses. The Minority Leader also must submit a similar list to the Speaker, who must keep a proportionate representation in the ethics committee similar to the composition of the current House. However, in practice, what has happened is that each of the two major parties, the Republican and the Democratic parties, have selected two members each for a total of four members. Generally, there are also two non-voting alternate members to substitute any of the official members who for whatever reason cannot continue working in the committee. The odd composition of the ethics committee has meant that there have been frequent ties when a matter has been subject to a vote. Although the ethics committee is allowed to employ a retired judge or another knowledgeable individual to assist the committee in its investigatory capacity and in making recommendations to the Speaker about what course of action the committee recommends, the reality is that throughout its history the members of the ethics committee have voted along party lines, which has greatly weakened their performance.

      Purpose of the Research

      This research will investigate whether the creation of the ethics committee in the biennial period 2009-2010 led to a higher number of ethics violations and decisions than

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1