Louisiana House Bill HB758

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/20/10
• Engrossed: 4/28/10
• Refer: 4/29/10
• Report Pass: 5/26/10
• Enrolled: 6/9/10
• Vetoed: 6/21/10

Caption

Requires the Board of Ethics to make available the name of a complainant under certain circumstances (EG SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)

Impact

If enacted, HB 758 would have altered the existing privacy framework surrounding ethics complaints within the state. While proponents may argue that it promotes fairness by letting accused individuals defend themselves fully, critics expressed concerns that this change could lead to a chilling effect on whistleblowers. By making the identity of the complainants public, individuals might be deterred from filing complaints about misconduct for fear of retribution or professional repercussions, which could undermine the ethical oversight they sought to uphold.

Summary

House Bill 758, introduced by Representative Hutter, sought to amend the procedures related to the enforcement of ethics laws in Louisiana. This bill specifically required the Louisiana Board of Ethics to disclose the identity of a complainant to any accused individual, upon their written request, after the conclusion of a complaint investigation. The intent behind this legislation was to enhance transparency in the ethical complaint process, allowing the accused to know who had filed the complaint against them, potentially aiding in their defense against the allegations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 758 was largely negative, especially among members of the Board of Ethics, which unanimously opposed the bill. Concerns about the balance between transparency and the potential discouragement of whistleblowers were frequently echoed in discussions. This bill highlighted a fundamental tension between the need for accountability in ethics enforcement and the protection of those who report unethical behavior.

Contention

Notably, the bill faced significant pushback from the ethics community, resulting in its veto by the governor. The veto message from the governor emphasized the risk that making complainants public could obstruct justice by preventing valid complaints from being filed. This contention emphasized the divide between ensuring transparent investigations and protecting the rights and safety of individuals who come forward to report unethical behavior.