Jindal’s first veto
Jindal cast his first veto against a bill that would allow a person accused of an ethics violation to see who made the complaint (or who provided information to the board). The bill passed unanimously in both houses.
So let me get this straight, the bill passed with a “veto proof” majority and Jindal still used his veto power?
And what doesn’t Jindal like about this bill? He states:
”…I am concerned that portions of the bill would have the unintended consequence of potentially impeding legitimate complaints,”
Of course it does not state WHY he has those concerns. I am unable to find any statement on the Governor’s webpage either. The ability to confront your accusers is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system and an important right. Why would Jindal oppose legislation that would allow a person accused of ethics violations to confront their accusers. It seems rather unamerican to me.
Update: Here is the text of the bill with the veto explanation:
Under current law, the Board of Ethics is required to provide an individual accused of misconduct with a “certified copy of the vote [to investigate] and an explanation of the matter or a copy of the sworn complaint if one has been submitted to the board.” (R.S. 42:1141B). House Bill No. 90 by Representative Dixon would require the Board to disclose additional information to an individual accused of misconduct once the Board has decided to pursue formal charges. The Bill would also mandate that the Board further disclose the “name of any complainant and the name of any other person providing information that the board has considered” prior to the required “private investigation” and the Board’s vote on whether to pursue formal charges. While I understand and support the right of an accused public servant to defend him/herself from formal charges, I am concerned that portions of the Bill would have the unintended consequence of potentially impeding legitimate complaints.
For this reason, I have vetoed House Bill No. 90 and am returning it to the House of Representatives.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Check out Forgotston’s take for more perspective.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I strongly disagree with Forgotston’s take. First of all, it is not wise to veto something when you know the legislature has enough votes to override the veto. What good does it do the Governor to flex his muscle and then have the Legislature override it?
And while the right to confront ones accuser may only apply to criminal penalties under the U.S. Constitution, that is hardly an excuse to not provide that right to people who are being charged with civil penalties.
The “logic” behind the Governor’s argument, and Forgotson’s as well, is that people would balk at bringing forward ethics inquiries against politicians. That might make for good drama for a movie. However, in reality there will still be people who step forward and do the right thing regardless of the law.
Forgotston is usually spot on. However, this time I have to disagree.