Report to The State Ethics Commission
Report to The State Ethics Commission
State Ethics Commission
For information: 919-814-3600
ethics@ncsbe.gov
Instructions: https://ethics.nc.gov/complaints/instructions-filing-ethics-complaint
Complaints must be made in writing. The Commission provides a form for filing complaints.
It is required by law that your complaint be signed, sworn, and notarized.
Complaints must be submitted by mailing the original of a printed complaint form, and any additional materials if applicable, to the Commission as follows: State Ethics Commission, PO Box 27685, Raleigh, NC 27611. Printed complaint forms must be either typed or written in clear and legible handwriting.
NCVMB members are:
Appointed state officials
Serving on a state occupational licensing board
Exercising quasi-judicial and regulatory authority
They are “covered persons” under N.C.G.S. § 138A-3(10) and subject to:
Duties of impartiality
Public service obligations
Prohibitions on using position to benefit others improperly
Staff (Executive Director, investigators) are also covered to the extent they act as state employees or agents.
So jurisdiction exists.
https://ethics.nc.gov/coverage/covered-persons
All voting members of non-advisory boards, including ex-officio members and members serving by Executive, Legislative, or Judicial Branch appointment. Non-advisory boards are any State board, commission, council, committee, task force, authority, or similar public body, however denominated, created by statute or executive order, as determined and designated by the Commission, except for those public bodies that have only advisory authority.
Covered Boards: https://ethicssei.nc.gov/Tools/CoveredBoards?type=7
These alone are not Ethics Act violations:
Arbitrary and capricious decisions
Failure to investigate adequately
Accepting one party’s narrative over another
Regulatory incompetence
Even gross administrative failure
Those are administrative law problems (OAH, courts, auditor, legislature).
The Ethics Commission will reject a complaint framed that way.
The Ethics Commission will summarily dismiss anything that reads like an administrative appeal or a malpractice brief.
Complaints must be anchored squarely in Chapter 138A violations.
When filing a complaint with the Ethics Commission, it is vital to distinguish between a disagreement with a board’s decision and a violation of the Ethics Act. The Commission focuses on whether public officials used their authority improperly.
Below are three common legal theories under N.C.G.S. § 138A that illustrate when a regulatory issue becomes an ethical one.
1. Failure of Impartiality (Bias toward Regulated Parties)
Statute: [N.C.G.S. § 138A-31(a)]
Covered persons (officials) are required to discharge their official duties in an impartial manner.
An ethics issue may exist if a Board’s record shows systemic favoritism rather than an honest mistake in judgment.
Signs of an Ethics Violation:
Giving weight to unsworn or inconsistent statements from licensees while ignoring sworn declarations from the public.
Disregarding objective, third-party evidence that contradicts the Board’s preferred outcome.
Failing to resolve factual conflicts specifically to avoid exposing a licensee’s wrongdoing.
The "Ethics" Framing: The argument here is not that the Board "got it wrong," but that they abandoned their duty of neutrality to protect the industry they are supposed to oversee.
2. Improper Use of Public Position to Benefit Others
Statute: [N.C.G.S. § 138A-31(b)(1)]
A public official is prohibited from using their position in a way that provides an improper benefit to themselves or another person. Note that a "benefit" does not have to be financial.
Signs of an Ethics Violation:
Regulatory Immunity: Shielding a company or individual from a mandatory investigation.
Suppression of Evidence: Purposefully avoiding documentation (like audit logs or records) that would require the Board to issue discipline or report findings to external agencies.
Protecting Reputations: Using official authority to help a licensee avoid scrutiny for non-compliance (e.g., unlicensed practice or fraud).
The "Ethics" Framing: This theory suggests the Board used its power as a "shield" for others, which constitutes an abuse of public authority.
3. Misleading the Public / Institutional Misrepresentation
Statute: [N.C.G.S. § 138A-31(c)]
Conduct that undermines public confidence or is inconsistent with faithful public service can be considered a violation of the public trust.
Signs of an Ethics Violation:
Representing to the public that a complaint was "thoroughly reviewed" when evidence shows the Board never accessed the relevant files.
Accepting records as "complete" or "accurate" despite visible alterations or conflicting versions.
Maintaining a process that appears legitimate on the surface but is functionally closed to public input.
The "Ethics" Framing: This moves the issue from "administrative error" to "institutional misrepresentation." It argues that the Board’s process was a formality designed to reach a pre-determined outcome, thereby misleading the public.
They can:
Investigate Board members’ and staff’s conduct
Examine whether ethical duties of impartiality and faithful service were breached
Refer findings to other authorities
Force disclosures and sworn responses
They cannot:
Reverse your complaint dismissal
Order a new investigation
Discipline veterinarians
Substitute for OAH or the courts
Think of them as exposing motive and conduct, not fixing your case directly.
When a state regulatory board fails to act on proven violations or actively suppresses evidence of misconduct, the issue has moved beyond professional malpractice. It has become a matter of government misconduct and a violation of the public trust.
The State Ethics Commission is a specialized "watchdog" agency designed specifically to maintain the integrity of government officials. While other agencies handle general legal enforcement, the Ethics Commission focuses on whether public officials are breaking the fundamental rules of their office.
Reporting to the Ethics Commission is a strategic step for several reasons:
The "Rulebook" for Public Service: Most boards are governed by an Ethics Act or Conflict of Interest Laws. These rules go beyond "legal vs. illegal" and focus on "right vs. wrong" in public office. The Commission has the sole authority to interpret and enforce these standards.
Specialized Investigative Powers: The Commission has the tools to investigate "soft" corruption that other agencies might overlook, such as Conflicts of Interest (voting on matters that benefit a board member's personal business) or the Misuse of Position (using board resources for personal or professional gain).
A Fairer Standard of Evidence: In criminal court, a case must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Ethics Commission often operates on a preponderance of evidence (meaning it is "more likely than not" that a violation occurred). This is a more attainable standard for holding board members accountable.
Direct Penalties: The Commission can issue Public Censures (formal public shaming), levy personal fines totaling thousands of dollars, and recommend the removal of board members from their seats.
If you are dealing with a board that refuses to enforce a Practice Act or is hiding evidence of falsified records, the Ethics Commission looks at three specific areas:
1. Neglect of Duty (Nonfeasance)
Board members take an oath to protect the public. By ignoring proven violations, they may be committing nonfeasance—failing to perform an act that is a mandatory part of their job. The Commission investigates whether board members are showing favoritism toward the industry they are supposed to regulate rather than acting "honestly and fairly."
2. Misuse of Official Position
If a board is burying evidence to help a professional avoid losing their license, they are granting an "unwarranted privilege." Using state power to give someone an illegal "pass" is a direct violation of most state ethics laws.
3. Identifying Hidden Conflicts
Why would a board suppress evidence? Often, it is due to personal or professional ties. The Ethics Commission can demand "Statements of Economic Interest," allowing them to perform a deep dive into the financial relationships between board members and the individuals they are supposed to be investigating.
The Bottom Line: Think of the Ethics Commission as "Internal Affairs" for the state. You contact them when those in power are breaking the rules of their position to protect themselves or their peers.