No Section

Ethics Panel: No investigation in Sen. Newman email flap

A Senate ethics committee decided tonight not to investigate a member whose office sent an email banning groups from meeting with him if they supported his political opponent.

February 10, 2011 at 3:24AM

A Senate ethics committee decided tonight not to investigate a member whose office sent an email banning groups from meeting with him if they supported his political opponent.

The committee said there was not probable cause to investigate Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, for an email sent by his aide last month. The three-sentence email said the senator would not meet with groups that "donated/supported his" his DFL opponent in last fall's election, Hal Kimball.

Newman, under oath, told the committee he knew nothing of the email before it was sent and he never had such a policy.

"I'm really, really pleased," Newman said afterward. "At this point, I want to get back to work for what I was sent here to do for the folks back home."

Newman answered questions from Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, one of four DFL caucus members who signed their names to the ethics complaint. Latz said he was "incredulous" to believe a low-level senate staffer would send out such an email without some direction from above.

Newman's attorney, Frederic Knaak, a former state senator, said even if his client had had prior knowledge of the email, it would not have violated ethics rules. He said Senators are busy and must prioritize who they meet with, and it would be natural to put supporters ahead of others.

While it may be "politically foolish" if one had such a policy, it does not violate Senate ethics rules.

"If you have people that are not your political supporters and are your opponent's (supporters)," Knaak said. "Who's kidding who? Of course it's unlikely that person is going to be treated in the same manner by your staff…The fact is that's the way it works. That's way it operates in a political institution."

The four-member subcommittee – two Republicans and two DFL members – deliberated behind closed doors, but said afterward that the tapes of the executive session would be made public. Such closed-door delibrations have been done in past ethics hearings.

Sen. Kenneth Kelash, DFL-Minneapolis, was one of four members who filed the complaint.

He said such episodes chip away at the public's trust in elected officials. He said they still don't know why the staffer decided to send the email with such a clearly-stated policy.

"When we brought this complaint before the Senate's Ethics Subcommittee, we had one simple goal: to determine the origins of the "pay-to-play" policy detailed in the e-mail sent by Sen. Newman's staff," Kelash said.

"Unfortunately, we're still left with many questions," he said.

Newman in his testimony said he had not spoken staff member, Kim Kelley, about the email she sent, but he had some idea how the missive came about. Yet, he declined to say because he said it would be speculation. Kelley was not at the hearing.

In addition to briefly answering reporters' questions, Newman issued a statement after the decision.
"I share the committee's desire to make it unmistakably clear that any conduct of this type would be of deep concern to all and would not be acceptable in the Minnesota State Senate," he said.