Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 23, 2009

Ethics commission clears House speaker

July 23, 2009

Advertisement

— The Kansas ethics commission dismissed a nepotism complaint Wednesday against House Speaker Mike O’Neal stemming from his wife’s hiring on the chamber’s leadership staff.

The commission voted 5-2 to dismiss the case. There was one abstention and one absence.

Commissioner John Solbach, a former legislator from Lawrence, said there was probable cause and the case needed to be heard, but the evidence didn’t suggest O’Neal played a role in the decision to hire his wife.

“When everything is considered, I don’t think we have clear and convincing evidence,” Solbach said.

Democratic Rep. Marti Crow of Leavenworth filed an ethics complaint in March against O’Neal, a Hutchinson Republican who became speaker in January.

Crow claimed O’Neal played a role in the hiring of his wife, Cindy O’Neal, as an aide to the House GOP Caucus in violation of the state’s anti-nepotism law.

“The intent was never there,” Mike O’Neal said after the decision. “We would hope that our statutes would be interpreted in a way that is fair.”

House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican, and Peter Freund, his chief of staff, testified that Mike O’Neal never pressured them to hire his wife to serve as a liaison to the Republican caucus.

Much of the case was built on the fact that the speaker consulted with the director of the Kansas Revisor of Statutes, who assists in the writing of state legislation, and the director of the ethics commission. In both cases, O’Neal was told that his wife could work for House leadership if she was hired and paid by the majority leader or speaker pro tem, but not his office.

Freund said he waited to hire Cindy O’Neal until he received for a memo dated Dec. 18 from Mike O’Neal giving the “green light.” Freund and Merrick interviewed a handful of people before hiring the speaker’s wife to the post, which pays $27,000 a year.

Mike O’Neal said he sought such opinions because he knew if there was an ethics violation regarding his wife’s employment he would be brought up on charges, even if it was another official who hired his wife.

Comments

OldEnuf2BYurDad 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm willing to say that if you read between the lines, it's clear that there was influence, even if not formally expressed. But, I have to ask: Do we care about $27K a year? This is not one of those $100K "consultant" jobs that usually appear in such controversies. Let her have her little job and let's move on to real business.

0

consumer1 4 years, 9 months ago

Eride. True statements. Of if there are ethic violations, (ha ha) then they should be revealed and dealt with. Although the constant bantering, adn name calling is just seems so devisive and it is wearing me out! Thanks

0

Eride 4 years, 9 months ago

I have to disagree consumer1. It is unusual for ethics complaints to be brought to the commission. Politicians like to protect their own no matter what party they belong to. Another reason for this is a finding of ethics violations can bring public outrage that could bring out all of their potential ethics violations out in the open as well... something that is not desirable for most politicians.

I am not going to claim it wasn't partisanship politics but there was probably good reason to bring this complaint or it wouldn't have been brought.

0

Hydra 4 years, 9 months ago

Freund said he waited to hire Cindy O’Neal until he received for a memo dated Dec. 18 from Mike O’Neal giving the “green light.” Freund and Merrick interviewed a handful of people before hiring the speaker’s wife to the post, which pays $27,000 a year

If that is not nepotism I don't know what is. Freund refused to hire anyone until O'neil told him to hire his wife. I think his token inteviews might have a case if they wanted to push it.

0

consumer1 4 years, 9 months ago

NOt quite Bob, I am not blind or deaf and I can read. I am fed up with the constant bickering between the two parties like fourth graders sniping over who took the last cookie. I was not pointing the finger at anyone, my comment was directed at the sniping between the left and the right, always accusing the other of some misguieded intentional wrongdoing. But thanks for trying to make it look as if I was just slamming the left. Which I have done in the past. But, this post stands alone, and your finger pointing is exactly the kind of CARP, that continues to whine about the other party. Rather than problem solve. Always pointing the finger.

0

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 9 months ago

In reality it was not much ado about nothing.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that if House Democratic Leader Paul Davis was using funds from his legislative office budget to pay his wife's salary consumer1 would be singing a different tune.

The situation is questionable and it was appropriate for the Ethics Commission to investigate. The only partisanship comes from those who, like consumer1, raise that argument in their posts.

0

consumer1 4 years, 9 months ago

hmmmm as I said before. with one correction, thank to the poster that pointed it out. Partisan witch hunting. Raising alot of dust about nothing.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.