A Senate bill that appears to ban nepotism actually includes a huge and thinly justified loophole that could render it ineffective.
SB 994 SD1 would prohibit a public official or employee from hiring, appointing, or promoting a relative in an agency over which the official or employee “exercises jurisdiction or control.”
It would also bar officials from even advocating on behalf of a relative under those conditions.
Legislators are also barred from voting for the confirmation of a relative.
But there’s a huge exception which was not in either of the original bills that were combined into the Senate draft.
…except under circumstances where the relative is highly qualified for the position.
And there’s the rub.
According to the committee report, this provision was included so that a relative of a public official would not be barred from being considered for a public position.
While your Committee is mindful that nepotism can potentially cause problems with favoritism, morale issues, or conflicts of interest because the hired relative may not be qualified for the position, sometimes the relative may truly be the best person for the position. In the latter case, a law that summarily prevents the relative from being considered for a position that the relative would otherwise qualify for on merit alone would be detrimental to the government agency and the public as a whole.
This seems more than a little disingenuous, since nothing in the bill appears to prohibit an agency from employing the relative of a public official, as long as the public official is not involved in the hiring process, and does not advocate for or directly appoint the relative to the position.
On the other hand, the provision would free legislators and other public officials to engage in nepotism on behalf of a “highly qualified” relative, with that qualifying term undefined.
I imagine most officials accused of nepotism begin by asserting that their relatives are, of course, “highly qualified.” Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Protecting the ability to hire relatives within a single department or organization should simply require straightforward provisions for the recusal of the public official from the decision-making.
This will be a very strong measure if the loophole “exception” is removed. The House should be encouraged to do just that.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is so sickening and irritating. There must be lots of BS like this if careful readers like you comb through the bills. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Actually, subsection (b)(2) does prohibit one public employee from hiring the relative of another public official appointed to or employed by the same agency, even if the other (nonhiring) public official had nothing to do with the hiring, etc., and knows nothing about it:
“(b) No public official or public employee of the State shall appoint, employ, promote, or advance to a position in an agency over which the public official or public employee exercises jurisdiction or control: … A relative of another public official elected to or employed by the same agency”.
The exemption does not affect the flat prohibition on advocating for a relative in subsection (a), because it only applies to the actions in subsection (b).
Thanks for your comment. I would agree with you IF this provision read something like: “No agency shall appoint, employ, promote, or advance the relative of a public official or public employee who exercises jurisdiction or control,” etc. That would have been simple to do. It seems to me that would be a prohibition on employment. The language you cite seems to leave open the option of the public official recusing himself or herself from any involvement in evaluating or selecting a relative. It seems to me that the differences in the two approaches helps clarify the situation.
Im just curious. What legislators, that we know of anyways, currently engage in nepotism? Im curious who’s doing it, for whom, and if those person(s) are, indeed, highly qualified.
Mizuno’s wife is his office manager.
The community gets what the community wants.
Ok, Mizuno’s just being dumb. Big surprise. He must know this would eventually draw criticism and questions. Are you telling me this proposal is directed at him? If it is, ok, that doesnt surprise me.
If not, what about in the departments? Do we really know how bad it is?
I remember AG Mark Bennett supervised his wife, but his wife was there at the dept. first and was more than qualified for her position. What happens then, Ian, without the amendment youre pointing out? His wife would have had to quit? Mark would have to have said no to the AG position? (Of course, in retrospect, he might have been better off saying No.)
Other examples in the department? Im betting theres really not so many concrete examples of family directly supervising/promoting family, so much that this law is necessary or would be even effective.
Isnt the big problem family getting family hired into juicy positions they would not otherwise be qualified for or might not have had that extra in on? Husbands, wives, kids, sisters, brothers…
Or in otherwords, even with this law, wont it still just be the who’s your daddy/who you know law of the land?
Good luck legislating that away.