The alternative to adopting this policy would be for Commission staff to continue to work with requestors to individually to review the request to identify the type of advice requested and attempt to meet each requestor’s expectations as to the response to be received and the process to be used.
Complaints and Investigations Procedures
The complaint process is largely codified in Wis. Stat. § 19.49(2); however, the Commission has adopted a policy to further describe its internal processes for handling complaints including initial review of the complaint by the administrator and staff counsel, tracking mechanisms, notice procedures, and the process for subsequent review by the Commission. The proposed policy would further describe the required elements of a sworn complaint and the conditions under which Commission staff will reject a submitted complaint as insufficient to proceed, the process through which a complaint is considered by the Commission, and how the Commission would determine whether a complaint is frivolous.
The alternative to adopting this policy would be for Commission staff to continue to exercise their independent judgment as to whether a complaint is sufficient to proceed, and for the Commission to continue its existing practices for considering complaints and making determinations as to whether a complaint is frivolous.
3. Detailed explanation of statutory authority for the rule (including the statutory citation and language):
The Commission has general authority for the promulgation of rules to carry out the requirements of Chapters 11, 13, and 19. 11.1304 Duties of the ethics commission. The commission shall:
(17) Promulgate rules to administer this chapter.
19.48 Duties of the ethics commission. The commission shall:
(1) Promulgate rules necessary to carry out ch. 11, subch. III of ch. 13, and this subchapter. 227.11 Extent to which chapter confers rule-making authority.
(2) Rule-making authority is expressly conferred on an agency as follows:
(a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation.
4. Estimate of the amount of time that state employees will spend developing the rule and of other resources necessary to develop the rule:
The Commission estimates that it will use approximately 0.05 FTE staff to develop this rule. This includes time required for research, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating stakeholder meetings, holding public hearings, legislative review and adoption, and communicating the final rule with affected persons and groups. The Commission will use existing staff resources to develop this rule.
5. List with description of all entities that may be affected by the proposed rule:
Candidates, political parties, and other registered committees; lobbyists and lobbying principals; state and local public officials; and the general public may be affected by the proposed rule.
6. Summary and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
The Wisconsin Ethics Commission is unaware of any existing or proposed federal regulation that is applicable to this rule.
7. Anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule (note if the rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on small businesses):
The Wisconsin Ethics Commission anticipates the rule having no economic impact beyond the specified amounts proposed to be forfeited in the event of a violation. The settlement schedule is designed to deprive the alleged violator of any benefit and serve as a deterrent to violations. This proposed rule includes no significant economic impact on small businesses.
Contact person: David P. Buerger
____________________________________________________
Daniel A. Carlton, Jr.
Administrator
Wisconsin Ethics Commission
_____________
Date Submitted
