Speaker Fecteau Issues Statement Following Ruling by Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices

AUGUSTA - Speaker of the House Ryan D. Fecteau (D-Biddeford) today issued the following statement on the ruling by the Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices:

“I stand by the statement I made to the Commission this morning and my request for an investigation into whether Representative Smith’s actions were a violation of the law. While I am disappointed by the Commission’s decision, I do appreciate that the Commissioners recognized the importance of further defining the rules for confidentiality.

“Clarifying the confidentiality requirements will be paramount to ensuring that those who seek to serve in public office are not subject to politically motivated attacks or attempts to, among other things, impact their employment prospects.

“What is clear from the ruling is not whether or not Representative Smith was in the wrong, but that the commission’s process is flawed, in the sense that there is ambiguity in when a request becomes confidential.”

###

Speaker Fecteau’s remarks to the Commission, as prepared for delivery, are below.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my request this morning.

First, I want to just say that I take Ethical considerations regarding my employment outside of the legislature very seriously. Prior to accepting employment with Avesta Housing in 2023 and Biddeford Housing in 2026, I have contacted Mr. Wayne for an actual advisory opinion regarding any conflicts with state laws. 

On July 8, Rep. Smith sent an email with an attached letter to Mr. Wayne. The subject of the email was “Formal Ethics Request”. The body of the email said, “Please see attached formal request for the Ethics Commission. I will mail a notarized version to you as seems to be required.”

Her attached letter said in part, “I write pursuant to the Commission’s authority under 1 M.R.S. § 1013 to respectfully request a formal review, advisory guidance, or, if appropriate, investigation on the Commission’s own motion concerning whether Speaker Ryan Fecteau’s continued service in the Maine House of Representatives, including as Speaker, is consistent with Maine’s legislative ethics and conflict-of-interest laws following his acceptance of employment as Executive Director of the Biddeford Housing Authority.”

And “I am not asking the Commission to presume wrongdoing based solely on Speaker Fecteau’s acceptance of this

position. I am asking for an independent review of the legal and ethical boundaries governing this arrangement

and whether his continued service, particularly as Speaker, is consistent with Maine law.”

Her words beg the questions. What is a “formal ethics request”? What is a “formal request”? What is a “formal review”? What is an “investigation”? Why would it be necessary to send a notarized copy of the letter “as seems to be required”? And perhaps most importantly, would an earnest person, someone who genuinely wants a fair and transparent perspective of the Ethics Commission, send their communication with Mr. Wayne to The Maine Wire shortly after submitting the “formal request”?

Honorable Commissioners, with all due respect to Mr. Wayne, I don’t believe he made the wrong assumption. Mr. Wayne was perceptive. The entire communication from Rep. Smith to Mr. Wayne is a request that seeks to leverage the Commission’s investigative authority.

By then subsequently sending this “formal request” or “formal ethics request” to The Maine Wire that was subsequently picked up by our local outlet the Biddeford Buzz, Rep. Smith ginned up a story that made it appear as though I was being investigated for wrongdoing. If the Commission accepts her at her word now rather than her words communicated to Mr. Wayne on July 8, a terrible precedent will be set. Lawmakers could be subject to bait-and-switch requests that are immediately shared with media outlets to then create an appearance of wrongdoing. 

I’m fortunate that, despite not having started the position with Biddeford Housing, that the Board decided to stick with me. For some employers, the notion of their prospective hire being investigated for taking a position with their company could very well cause them to be rattled and withdraw an employment offer. This is not a political game. This has very serious consequences for the livelihoods of those who seek and serve in public office.

In the days following the online stories, I saw comments from people in my community who were suddenly questioning my integrity. The law regarding the confidentiality of “formal requests” like this one exists for the very reasons that unfolded in this scenario. 

It may be expedient now to avoid consequences to call this an ask for an “advisory opinion”. It isn’t expedient for me who has already faced the reputational consequences of being portrayed as under investigation. The confidentiality provision in statute exists for this very scenario. I respectfully request that the Commission not allow it to be violated.