Ethics Commission drops complaint against Oregon First Spouse

PORTLAND, Ore. – The Oregon Government Ethics Commission recently reached a deadlock in a vote on whether to investigate Gov. Tina Kotek over a conflict of interest allegation involving her wife, Aimee Kotek-Wilson. The tie vote precluded further investigation into the ethics complaints.

Earlier this year, three top officials in Kotek’s office suddenly resigned, followed later by other high-ranking officials. It soon became clear that their departures had something to do with the role assigned to Kotek’s wife in the government.

After the news came to light, Kotek publicly stated that she wanted to create an “office of first spouse” to clear up some ambiguity in Oregon law about what a governor’s spouse can or should do. She later dropped the plan, suggesting that she was responding to the criticism it had generated — although much of the criticism concerned actions that took place long before such a plan was developed.

RELATED: Governor Kotek backs down on first spouse appointment amid scrutiny of exodus of his staff

Meanwhile, several unknown parties have filed ethics complaints alleging that Kotek violated state law by taking steps to involve her wife in the administration, by assigning state police to protect her at certain public events, and by assigning other personnel to assist her.

In Oregon, Kotek’s actions come in a difficult context. In 2015, then-Governor John Kitzhaber resigned in disgrace after allegations that his fiancée had violated ethics laws. Sylvia Hayes paid a $44,000 fine to settle allegations that she had abused the governor’s office for personal gain by serving as an unpaid environmental consultant to Kitzhaber while trying to win private consulting contracts with companies seeking to influence the state’s policies.

As several experts have pointed out, the two cases – Kotek’s and Kitzhaber’s – are not identical. Sylvia Hayes was essentially charged with influence trading for financial gain, while Aimee Kotek Wilson was at most accused of profiting from nepotism and exerting influence where it was not wanted. In Kotek’s case, the issue seems to have so troubled senior staff that there was a mass exodus, and the memory of Kitzhaber’s scandal inevitably forms the backdrop.

Susan Myers, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, said she reviewed documents and press reports about the resignations from Kotek’s office but chose not to interview the employees directly. Nonetheless, she concluded that the complaints were without merit because Aimee Kotek-Wilson received no financial benefit – an important difference from the Kitzhaber case.

However, other members of the Ethics Committee were dissatisfied with this decision.

“I appreciate your comment, Director, that you reviewed the social media transcripts, particularly as it relates to the three employees of the governor’s office that the media said had left the office,” said Dave Fiskum, vice chairman of the commission. “My question is, did you speak to those individuals as part of that review?”

“No,” Myers replied. “If I had seen any information in those social media or email posts that suggested they had anything to say about potential violations, anything about money or financial interests, I would have. But from what I saw, it didn’t seem like what they were talking about or what was troubling them had anything at all to do with what our laws required.”

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission has nine members. All are appointed by the governor, but most are nominated by members of the legislature; four are Democrats and four are Republicans. The governor can appoint the last member.

The body is intended to be non-political, but consists of political appointments with the idea of ​​balancing things out.

RELATED: Governor Kotek’s office asks Ethics Commission for advice on role of first spouse; Commission says it cannot provide advice when investigating complaints

Richard Burke, a Republican-nominated commissioner in the House, called for a more thorough investigation into the complaints against Kotek.

“I think we all know from our time in politics that you have to be very careful when you write something, especially something that could be included in the public record. You don’t necessarily want to burn all your bridges. There are a lot of problems with writing an email,” Burke said. “So I’m actually a little surprised that you didn’t take the extra step of interviewing these people. It may well be that it’s exactly as you say. It may well be that they were covering themselves based on what they’re putting in the written record. But I’m wondering why you didn’t interview them given those dynamics.”

Myers stressed that the most important question is whether Aimee Kotek-Wilson benefited financially from her role in the government. Since there is no evidence of this, Myers concluded that there was no need to investigate further – although she admitted that she would conduct those interviews if the commission decided to continue the investigation.

Burke said it’s important to remember that the public is watching.

“There are other issues here. It’s about the use of the office, whether the office was used appropriately, as the attorney who gave us the answer suggested,” Burke said. “And I think the state is watching us. Everyone is watching us very closely after the John Kitzhaber and Sylvia Hayes thing.”

“I think it’s very important that we carefully consider whether the statements in your report are actually true, that the resources provided to the first spouse were – if I use that term correctly – appropriate and that the use of those resources was appropriate, and we should not, in my opinion, determine that based solely on the words of the attorney who responded in this case.”

RELATED: Ethical issues surrounding Oregon Secretary of State’s sideline as a consultant to the cannabis industry

The attorney was Derek Johnson, who represented the governor and was himself a former member of the Ethics Commission.

“I share the same concerns as the commissioners that the Oregon Government Ethics Commission is being viewed or used as a political tool,” Johnson said. “Their role in holding public officials accountable is important, but it is equally important to reject unsubstantiated or unsupported allegations – and that is exactly what you have here, as the CEO’s very thorough and complete report demonstrates. There is no evidence of any violation of Oregon Government ethics and laws. That is what you have before you now.”

“Commissioner Burke, I appreciate your concern about what is and is not appropriate in the governor’s office. That is something we should all be concerned about. However, what is appropriate is different from what is legal or permissible under the ethics laws. Appropriateness falls within the scope of what we would consider a political concern, and political concerns are not within the purview of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.”

The debate on the matter lasted an hour. Finally, the Republican-nominated chairman of the commission, Shawn Lindsay, made it clear that he wanted further investigations.

“The gaping hole that I see here is that we only have the information available that is material. And we have not independently verified or investigated some of those facts. And so I think there is a material objective basis based on those reports to proceed with the investigation,” Lindsay said. “I don’t think we should treat people any differently. I’ve honestly lost count of the number of times we’ve had respondents here in our office crying and we’ve said to them, ‘We’re going to proceed with the investigation to independently verify some facts. And most likely it will be dismissed later, you’ll be proven right. But we need to get those facts straight to do our job.'”

RELATED: Oregonians will get a ‘fair chance’ to get their hands on rare alcohol in new lottery system after ‘Bourbongate’ scandal, panel says

But not everyone agreed. Shenoa Payne, a lawyer nominated by the Democrats to the commission, concluded that no further investigation was needed for one simple reason:

“The allegations here, even if they were substantiated, would still not raise a violation to me. As far as I know, there are no allegations that the first spouse has an outside job, that the first spouse has an outside contract that could be leveraged in any way financially,” Payne said. “So, in my opinion, interviewing these witnesses is not going to establish any allegations that are going to change that situation. In my opinion, the allegations are not such that they would change anything about the report that we have. Those are the kinds of facts that would change anything for me. Right now, we have a volunteer, we have an unpaid spouse, and I don’t think there are any other allegations that would change anything before us.”

Channa Newell, another Democratic candidate, echoed this sentiment.

“As far as the interviews with the three people and additional interviews with them, I’ve heard from Commissioner Payne and Executive Director Meyers that even if they had corroborated everything in the allegation, it wouldn’t be a violation,” Newell said. “And so are we being efficient with our time? Are we being efficient with our use here? Is it worth doing that just to make sure we’ve examined every brick and every corner? I don’t think so. It feels punitive to move forward because there’s no substantive objective basis at this point. I understand people may disagree. But to me, that’s my opinion.”

Ultimately, the four Republican-nominated commissioners voted to continue the investigation. Three Democratic-appointed commissioners voted against it, along with the commissioner appointed by former Gov. Kate Brown, and a final commissioner was absent. But in a tie vote, the ethics complaint alleging that Kotek violated rules to avoid conflicts of interest did not have enough support to move forward and was dismissed.