Tom Leonard’s Accountability and Ethics Package
Create the Independent Ethics Commission
The Problem (Michigan Today) –
Board of Ethics (1973 PA 196): Michigan technically has a “Board of Ethics,” but its authority is very limited:
It issues advisory opinions to executive branch employees.
No subpoena power, no penalty authority, no binding enforcement.
Legislative and judicial branches are completely outside its scope.
Attorney General & Secretary of State gaps:
The Attorney General handles criminal referrals, but no civil enforcement teeth for most ethics’ breaches.
The Secretary of State oversees campaign finance but is conflicted when complaints involve their own office (the so-called “Benson Gap”).
Michigan ranking: In national ethics and transparency scorecards, Michigan routinely ranks near the bottom for oversight, conflicts, and financial disclosure.
Net result: No one in Lansing has both the jurisdiction and the tools to enforce ethics across branches of government.
Tom’s Solution –
Michigan Ethics Commission (MEC)
Created as a standalone commission housed administratively within the Office of the Auditor General.
Why OAG?
OAG is constitutionally independent of the executive and reports to the Legislature but is not partisan.
Housing MEC there gives it administrative independence and credibility, while keeping fiscal controls lean.
OAG already has audit staff and investigatory culture, which pairs well with ethics enforcement.
Transparency & Reporting
Online portal for complaints, advisory opinions, and enforcement actions.
Annual State of Ethics Report to Legislature and Governor, recommending statutory updates.
Public dashboards showing complaint resolution times and penalty data.
Modernize the “Michigan Hatch Act” (PA 169 of 1976)
The Problem (Michigan Today) –
Unlike the federal Hatch Act, PA 169 does not specify standalone fines or criminal penalties within the statute text.
Instead, violations are typically handled through administrative disciplinary action—up to and including termination—by the appointing authority (e.g., the Civil Service Commission or agency head). Some local ordinances reference this structure explicitly.
Importantly, there is no civil fine, audit power, or independent oversight mechanism embedded in the act; enforcement relies on internal management discretion.
Tom ‘s Solution -
Define Key Terms such as:
“On-duty time” — e.g., time when an employee is paid, in uniform, or using public resources.
“Public resources” — include state time, equipment, office space, email systems, vehicles, etc.
“Solicitation / coercion” — e.g., requesting campaign contributions from subordinates or using influence tied to public office.
“Political activity” — clearly distinguish allowed personal acts (voting, private expression) from prohibited ones (campaigning while in official capacity or space).
Tiered Penalties:
Tier 1 (Minor violations): Written warning, training, public advisory note.
Tier 2 (Mid-level): Formal reprimand, mandatory ethics training, temporary suspension.
Tier 3 (Serious violations): Administrative hearing with potential civil fine up to $5,000, or termination.
Enforcement Mechanism:
Mandate that complaints be referred to an independent Ethics Commission or allow internal hearings with due process.
Permit civil fines in addition to disciplinary action.
Required Training:
Annual or onboarding training that outlines permissible political behavior and the updated definitions.
Whistleblower Protections:
Protect employees who report violations from retaliation.
Create the “Legislative Integrity Act”
The Problem (Michigan Today) –
Michigan’s campaign-finance law sets contribution limits and bans use of public resources for campaigning, but it does not create any general ban on soliciting or accepting campaign money during the legislative session.
There’s no “session blackout” in the MCFA sections that govern contributions (§§52, 54) or public-resource use (§ 57).
That leaves Michigan open to the perception, and risk, of same-day lawmaking and fundraising.
Tom ‘s Solution -
Session Blackout Days
Gavel-In / Gavel-Out Blackout (Day-Based Rule)
On any legislative session day, the rule would prohibit fundraising from 12:01 AM until 11:59 PM on the same day if either chamber gavels into session.
Applies to committee hearing days, regardless of whether the gavel in/gave out blackout day is in effect (so if a committee hearing happens on a day when the Legislature has not been gaveled in, the day rule still applies).
Covers soliciting, accepting, or causing to be solicited/accepted any contribution or pledge.
Apply the blackout to (a) any committee an official controls or chairs, (b) legislative caucus and leadership funds, and (c) any state party committee when the covered official is the beneficiary of a targeted solicitation.
Enforcement Mechanism:
Civil fines per violation (e.g., up to $5,000 or 3× the illegal amount, whichever is greater) and mandatory return within 10 days.
72-hour public e-reporting of any contribution received/returned during blackout.
Injunctive relief and fee-shifting for willful violations.
Primary jurisdiction in the independent Ethics Commission not the Secretary of State, to avoid conflicts.
Close the “Benson Gap” in MCFA §15 (MCL 169.215)
The Problem (Michigan Today) –
What the law says now (MCFA §15, MCL 169.215):
Campaign-finance complaints are investigated by the Secretary of State (SoS) through the Bureau of Elections.
If the complaint involves the SoS, the law says it must be referred to the Attorney General (AG).
The Benson case (Jan. 2025):
Secretary Benson used the state-owned Austin Building lobby for her reelection campaign kickoff.
Bureau of Elections referred the complaint to the AG.
The AG found a violation (use of state facilities for campaign activity = illegal under MCFA §57).
But the AG publicly admitted that under current law she had no authority to impose civil fines or enforce remedies when the SoS is the respondent — those enforcement tools remain with the SoS’s office, which obviously can’t police itself.
The Enforcement Gap:
For any other official, the SoS can fine, order disgorgement, or force compliance.
For the SoS herself, the AG can only say “violation” and issue a warning. No penalty, no deterrent.
Public Perception:
This looks like “rules for thee, but not for me” — a self-policing system where the referee is also the player.
Tom’s Solution -
Close the Enforcement Gap
Amend MCFA §15 (MCL 169.215) to say when the respondent is the SoS (or a SoS candidate committee), the Attorney General or the Independent Ethics Commission (if created under Section H) has full enforcement authority, including:
Civil fines up to $25,000 per violation.
Disgorgement of unlawful contributions or benefits.
Cease-and-desist orders.
Referral to criminal prosecution for knowing or intentional misconduct.
Independent Enforcement Path
Alternatively, vest jurisdiction exclusively in the Ethics Commission (MEC) for all SoS complaints.
Bureau of Elections forwards complaints automatically to MEC when the SoS is the subject.
MEC conducts hearings, issues penalties, and publishes findings.
Mandatory Public Transparency
Require that all SoS-related complaints and determinations be published online within 10 days.
Broaden Recusal Rules
Require the SoS to recuse from any campaign-finance oversight decision involving:
Her own committee,
Committees controlled by SoS staff or family,
Or ballot committees directly supporting/opposing her candidacy.
Expand FOIA and Transparency
The Problem (Michigan Today) -
Michigan’s FOIA (1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 et seq.) applies to state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, universities, and local governments.
Explicit carve-outs: The Governor’s office and the Legislature (House, Senate, and their staff/committees) are exempt.
This exemption makes Michigan an outlier: most states apply FOIA (or equivalent open records laws) to all branches with only narrow exceptions.
In addition to FOIA exemptions, state leaders have used non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with staff, vendors, and even legislators.
NDAs bar disclosure of internal communications or negotiations that should be part of the public record.
They allow political leaders to contract around transparency, even in taxpayer-funded roles.
Consequences:
Citizens can’t see how the Governor’s office communicates with agencies, lobbyists, or vendors.
Legislative caucus memos, leadership correspondence, and outside influence are shielded from scrutiny.
This lack of transparency has contributed to Michigan ranking near the bottom nationally on integrity and transparency scorecards.
Public perception:
Creates the sense of a “Lansing cover-up culture” — citizens are subject to government, but government shields itself from citizens.
Tom’s Solution –
Apply FOIA to Executive Branch
Cover Governor, Lt. Governor, and executive staff.
Define records to include official correspondence, calendars, visitor logs, travel records, and final staff reports.
Exemptions: personal comms, active security/law enforcement matters, and drafts until final.
Enact a Legislative Open Records Act (LORA)
Apply FOIA-style access to House, Senate, leadership offices, and legislative service agencies
Cover: official correspondence, staff memos, calendars, travel/expense records.
Exemptions: constituent casework, attorney-client privileged material, internal draft strategy until bill introduction.
Ban Government NDAs
Prohibit state officials (executive or legislative) from requiring NDAs of:
Elected officials, legislative staff, state employees, contractors, or interns.
Exception: NDAs may be used only for:
Protecting personal privacy in personnel disputes.
Safeguarding bona fide security-sensitive information.
NDAs may never be used to block disclosure of government decision- making, negotiations, or use of public resources.
Any NDA in violation is void and unenforceable as against public policy.
Enforcement & Oversight
Appeals of FOIA denials and NDA disputes go to the new Ethics Commission (MEC).
Place a Citizen’s Advocate in each department to serve as the people’s watchdog and serve as the direct line for citizens making a FOIA request.
Civil penalties and fee-shifting for agencies that improperly deny requests or misuse NDAs.
Annual reports published showing number of FOIA requests, denials, and NDA violations.