Op-ed: The Vermont House Ethics report is out and there’s nothing to see here, really

By John Walters
©2025 Vermont Political Observer

Last week, the Vermont House Ethics Panel issued its annual report — and provided its annual reminder that the Legislature’s ethics process is meant to serve its members, not the public interest.

The entire report occupies less than half a page of copy. Three paragraphs, 11 lines, 123 words. Took me a brisk 43 seconds to read it from start to finish. (At least the House panel actually filed a report. There’s no sign of a corresponding document from the Senate Ethics Panel.)

The report complies with the law, which means there are no details whatsoever. Everything is concealed from public view except the scantiest outline of the panel’s minimal activity for the year 2024. The report can be downloaded from the General Assembly’s list of Legislative Reports, for all the good it’ll do ya.

If you do download the thing, here’s what you will learn. The panel received five complaints during 2024 and closed three because “there were no reasonable grounds to believe” that a violation occurred. The other two remain open.

The panel also closed a 2022 complaint that had been placed on “inactive status” at the time, whatever that means. And it received one request from a lawmaker for “ethical advice.”

And … that’s it. No information about who filed complaints about which lawmakers alleging what ethical offenses. No information about how the panel considered the complaints. Did they hold hearings? Did they take testimony? If so, from whom? Were the complainants allowed to speak or present evidence? (If my own experience as the first person to ever file an ethics complaint against a lawmaker is any indication, the answer to the latter question is “No.”) You won’t see any details about the panel’s reasoning in closing the three complaints or why two others remain open.

Also, the panel’s meetings are not publicly warned and are not accessible to the public. In fact, the Legislature’s website lists no meetings at all for the House Ethics Panel during the 2023-24 biennium. Not a single one.

This is how the process is designed to work.
There is no transparency at all. It’s completely
exempt from public records law. When this system
was established, it was explained to me that the
goal was to protect lawmakers from having their
reputations besmirched by frivolous complaints.

This is how the process is designed to work. There is no transparency at all. It’s completely exempt from public records law. When this system was established, it was explained to me that the goal was to protect lawmakers from having their reputations besmirched by frivolous complaints.

Yeah, well, bullshit. If complaints were public knowledge, we’d know which ones were baseless. We’d know if someone was filing complaints by the bushelful or targeting a specific lawmaker, and that person would be exposed as a crank.

Here’s the thing. State lawmakers are, need I say it, public servants. If there was an open process, would they run the risk of a little embarrassment? Sure. But that’s about all. An open process would offer some reassurance that The People’s Business is being conducted honestly, that our elected representatives are behaving ethically.

We’d also know a lot more about the ethical standards our officials are expected to abide by. We’d have a sense of how the process operates. There’d be some basis for confidence in — or criticism of — the Legislature’s ethics process. The current regime is a complete black box. We deserve better.

Last week, the House Ethics Panel issued its annual report — and provided its annual reminder that the Legislature’s ethics process is meant to serve its members, not the public interest.

The entire report occupies less than half a page of copy. Three paragraphs, 11 lines, 123 words. Took me a brisk 43 seconds to read it from start to finish. (At least the House panel actually filed a report. There’s no sign of a corresponding document from the Senate Ethics Panel.)

The report complies with the law, which means there are no details whatsoever. Everything is concealed from public view except the scantiest outline of the Panel’s minimal activity for the year 2024. The report can be downloaded from the General Assembly’s list of Legislative Reports, for all the good it’ll do ya.

If you do download the thing, here’s what you will learn. The panel received five complaints during 2024 and closed three because “there were no reasonable grounds to believe” that a violation occurred. The other two remain open.

The panel also closed a 2022 complaint that had been placed on “inactive status” at the time, whatever that means. And it received one request from a lawmaker for “ethical advice.”

The panel’s meetings are not publicly warned
and are not accessible to the public. In fact, the
Legislature’s website lists no meetings at all
for the House Ethics Panel during the 2023-24
biennium. Not a single one.

And … that’s it. No information about who filed complaints about which lawmakers alleging what ethical offenses. No information about how the panel considered the complaints. Did they hold hearings? Did they take testimony? If so, from whom? Were the complainants allowed to speak or present evidence? (If my own experience as the first person to ever file an ethics complaint against a lawmaker is any indication, the answer to the latter question is “No.”) You won’t see any details about the Panel’s reasoning in closing the three complaints or why two others remain open.

Also, the panel’s meetings are not publicly warned and are not accessible to the public. In fact, the Legislature’s website lists no meetings at all for the House Ethics Panel during the 2023-24 biennium. Not a single one.

This is how the process is designed to work. There is no transparency at all. It’s completely exempt from public records law. When this system was established, it was explained to me that the goal was to protect lawmakers from having their reputations besmirched by frivolous complaints.

Yeah, well, bullshit. If complaints were public knowledge, we’d know which ones were baseless. We’d know if someone was filing complaints by the bushelful or targeting a specific lawmaker, and that person would be exposed as a crank.

Here’s the thing. State lawmakers are, need I say it, public servants. If there was an open process, would they run the risk of a little embarrassment? Sure. But that’s about all. An open process would offer some reassurance that The People’s Business is being conducted honestly, that our elected representatives are behaving ethically.

We’d also know a lot more about the ethical standards our officials are expected to abide by. We’d have a sense of how the process operates. There’d be some basis for confidence in — or criticism of — the Legislature’s ethics process. The current regime is a complete black box. We deserve better.