While it is clearly not the most important matter on the legislative agenda this year, the issue of the pay structure for the executive director of the state Ethics Commission deserves more than halfhearted attention.
Lawmakers could boost their own credibility by approving a change that would take authority over the ethics chief’s salary out of their own hands.
As it is today, the state Ethics Commission under executive director Dan Mollway is one of the chief policing agencies for legislative behavior. But Mollway’s salary is set by those same lawmakers, creating an obvious appearance of conflict.
There is no suggestion that Mollway or the commission has held back because it does not want to irritate paycheck-wielding lawmakers. Nor has it been shown that Mollway’s pay has been targeted because some lawmakers have been cited for ethical infractions.
But both possibilities exist under the current system.
The Ethics Commission is an exception from the general rule that salary for the full-time staff of boards and commissions is set by the commission itself.
That is what the current Ethics Commission wants in Mollway’s case.
By making the change, lawmakers would signal that they neither want, nor expect, to have administrative authority over this important regulatory body. It would help create a clean, hands-off relationship between the Legislature and the Ethics Commission.
Lawmakers would always retain some general authority, because they must set and approve the commission’s overall budget.
If legislators feel they do not want the Ethics Commission to set the salary for its executive director, then an alternative would be to tie that salary to the pay for Cabinet directors or their deputies.
This is already the case for offices such as the state auditor, the ombudsman and others.
This is not so much about how much the ethics director should be paid, but rather about where the salary controls should rest. The choice should be obvious.
