Lobbyist Joe Neville and his attorney, former Sen. Shawn Mitchell, at an Ethics Committee hearing today. Neville later walked out in protest.Joe Neville, the political director for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told a committee hearing an ethics complaint against him that he will no longer participate in the “unconstitutional tribunal.”
Neville read a statement (printed in its entirety below) to the Ethics Committee this morning, then exited the hearing room, leaving the committee and legislative staffers looking at each other in surprise.
Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, filed the complaint against Neville, after an encounter in which she admits telling Neville to “(expletive) off” and he responded by saying: “You just earned yourself another round of mailers in your district.” The House at the time was hearing four gun bills.
Gerou believes that remark — threatening to send mailers critical of her to her constituents — violated Rule 36, which states, in part, that lobbyists cannot try to influence legislators “by means of deceit or threat … .”
Here is Neville’s statement, in which he criticizes the Ethics Committee and Gerou:
I appreciate and respect the committee’s invitation to attend the hearing this morning and to answer follow up questions that members may have.
I have certain concerns about the reasonableness of further questions, and also grave reservations about the legitimacy of this process, that I feel compelled to share with the committee.
First, I strongly believe that Rule 36 is unconstitutional as drafted.
People with strong beliefs will support or oppose politicians based on whether or not they share and vote with the same beliefs. That is the spirit of self-government. It is the essence of free speech and the right to petition government.
A rule that tries to declare it unethical to say out loud what is obvious–what everybody knows–is offensive. And, frankly, it is silly.
Second, this committee’s meeting last week is a clear illustration how this rule and this process create dangers for free speech. You lawmakers, elected representatives of the people, and sworn upholders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, asked me questions about how my organization decided which lawmakers to target with mailings, what our knowledge of their positions was, and what we tried to communicate to the voters in their districts.
Don’t you see how offensive that is to the letter and spirit of the First Amendment? Do you think you can dictate and supervise the way people petition their government?
I don’t believe you can. And if you reflect on your oath and the text of the Constitution, I hope you come to the same conclusion.
And as a technical matter, what do any of you think that RMGO’s analysis long before the incident with Representative Gerou has to do with whether I had an intent to threaten her on the morning she summoned me to insult, bully, and abuse me?
And yet, some of you ask probing questions about how I responded to her assault. Why didn’t I walk away? Why didn’t I turn the other cheek? Well, how do some of you respond when you are under heated attack? Is it always your best moment? Something primed for YouTube replays?
Turning the other cheek is a higher law.
We don’t always live up to it and this experience reminds me I should try harder in the future.
But let me repeat something else I shared with you all last week.
Representative Gerou summoned me. I had no agenda to talk to her. When I responded to her call, she confronted me. She berated me. She cursed me. She initiated physical contact with me.
I quietly took it all. Then I responded, in the heat of the instant, with a mild comment that RMGO just might mail into her district again. How serious a so called threat do you think that is?
The vote was that very day. Do you think I actually had a calculated motive to influence her vote with mailings that couldn’t reach her constituents until long after the final votes were cast and counted?
And then to top it all off, the elected lawmaker, the representative of the people, the angry person who summoned and abused me, who committing two or three actual crimes in the process, after the dust had settled, and after grown-ups should reflect, cool down and move on, had the arrogance to file an ethics complaint against me! Based on a grasping interpretation of an overbroad, unconstitutional rule.Have any of you thought to file an ethics complaint against her? Or to tell her privately that her conduct was inappropriate? That it was unbecoming of an elected official with the privilege to represent her constituents at the capitol?
Do you think how I responded to her attack is more important than her attack itself? Why? What privilege do lawmakers have to abuse advocates?
But this is a political process, not a strictly legal one. And you aren’t supervised by a court of appeals charged to apply the law. So, I know what you’re likely to do. What most every ethics committee has done before you: find some political solution; some middle ground.
It would embarrass Representative Gerou for you to dismiss her complaint outright as unreasonable and unfounded. Well, I’ve decided not to be the model penitent for your unconstitutional tribunal. In fact, I reject this entire process.
So, with all due respect, I decline to participate further. I thank you for your invitation and the opportunity to share my positions with the committee.
Thank you Madame Chairman, members of the committee for your attention. Please excuse me.
Gerou’s complaint was reviewed by the bipartisan Executive Committee, which voted unanimously to form an ethics committee to investigate it.