House Republican Office
For Immediate Release November 8, 2019
Contact: 603-271-3665
House Republican Leader Comments on Ethics Ruling Concerning House Majority Leader
CONCORD – House Republican Leader Dick Hinch issued a statement after reviewing text of an informal resolution from the House Ethics Committee regarding a complaint against House Majority Leader Douglas Ley (D-Jaffrey), available in the November 8th House Calendar.
“The Committee’s decision to resolve the complaint without formal sanctions doesn’t excuse the fact that the Committee found a litany of questionable activity and votes by the Majority Leader that appear to have been in violation of ethics guidelines. The Speaker of the House should see how poorly this reflects on his administration and the House, to have a ruling of this nature against his top lieutenant,” Hinch said. “This is just another example of a double standard in the House of Representatives when the Speaker allows people in his inner circle to continue to serve in leadership roles, while he punishes Republicans for relatively minor infractions. Let’s get serious. The Majority Leader has been under investigation for months, and the Ethics Committee issued a report that flags several years of ethically questionable activity. How can the Speaker defend his lack of action? Are ethics violations for Democrats in a leadership position being swept under the rug?”
In the complaint, the Ethics Committee lists several examples of violations of ethics guidelines by Rep. Ley (emphasis added):
Example #1: 2017 bill relative to Right to Work. In this case, it is alleged that you disclosed you had an interest in the legislation but announced that you would participate and vote. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect on your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).
Example #2: For HB 438 (2018) Hearing House Labor: Eliminating Automatic Union Dues for State Employees. It is alleged that you voted on this legislation which directly affected the interests of your employer. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect on your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).
Example #3: HB 1405 (2018) Heard in House Labor. Requiring school district personnel to
be eligible for Family and Medical Leave Act. It is alleged that you did not vote on this legislation on the House floor but participated in committee. If this legislation was about the Family and Medical Leave Act in general, it would not be a problem. But, being directed at school district personnel, it would provide a specific benefit for your union members. The Committee has determined that this matter had a direct effect upon your employer and recusal was the appropriate action to be taken. This would be a violation of the Ethics Guidelines, Prohibited Activities, Section 3, Paragraph II, Subparagraphs (c) and (d).
In addition the Committee found that violations may have occurred if/when Rep. Ley signed in in favor of or in opposition to legislation representing his employer, AFT-NH, on “blue sheets” at public hearings on legislation.
The Committee issued an informal resolution of the matter which requires the Majority Leader to recuse himself from future debates and votes on policy directly affecting his employer.
###