Idaho House Ethics Committee remains transparent in dark times for the Legislature

The House Ethics Committee has yet to draft and vote on final rules governing its conduct of business, but it should be commended for heading in the right direction.

It has been a dark time for the Legislature, especially when it comes to the personal and professional conduct of its members.

Earlier this year, Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger, R-Lewiston, made repeated romantic advances toward a variety of women in subordinate positions in the Capitol before being accused of raping a 19-year-old intern. He resigned before he could be expelled, and faces felony charges.

Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird, then posted a link to a right-wing blog with the woman’s name, photo and information about her family, in what appears to us to be retaliation for reporting the alleged rape. She was censured following hearings last month.

The ethics committee has conducted its business carefully and professionally this year as it has dealt with some of the most high-profile ethical violations by lawmakers in recent memory. The process was not flawless, but in the end, lawmakers were held accountable for their misdeeds.

But the political allies of those lawmakers are unhappy with the way the committee operated. There was too much public fuss, they say. Better to keep the whole process of gathering testimony and deciding whether to recommend sanctions for an ethical violation secret, they argued.

That view was roundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of the committee last week.

The only advocacy for hearing complaints in a smoke-filled room came from Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, and Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, both close political allies of the two recently disciplined lawmakers. They were the only two members of the committee to vote against censuring Giddings when the matter came to the House floor.

At the ethics committee’s recent meetings, Young noted that school boards use private hearings when they’re considering expelling a student; certainly, the Legislature could do the same. It seems the difference between an elected government official and an out-of-control child eluded her — admittedly, the line has been blurry more than once in the last few years.

Thankfully, there were people more rational than Young in the room.

Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, put the matter well: “At a certain point, the public deserves the answers as much as every member of the House deserves these answers because that is who employs us.”

Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, agreed.

“Hearings are public,” he said. “Trials are public. That’s how we do business in this country.”

So in a dark political time, Idahoans can at least draw some solace from the fact that the House’s ethics process will remain professional and transparent at a time when accountability is more important than ever.

Elected representatives are not simply subject to the same standards as the rest of us, but to higher standards, as a consequence of their status. When they break basic ethical rules, and especially when they are utterly unrepentant, as both von Ehlinger and Giddings have been, it is vital to set things right by disciplining them.

And it is vital that the discipline be public.

This story was originally published December 14, 2021 at 1:38 PM.