Ethics panel deadlocked over DFL Sen. Mitchell ethics complaints, declines to take action until later
A Minnesota Senate panel on Thursday discussed a new ethics complaint against embattled DFL Sen. Nicole Mitchell, who faces two felony burglary charges, but members didn't take any further action.
At issue are two filings: Frst, GOP lawmakers amended a previous ethics complaint related to that alleged home invasion last April to which Mitchell has pleaded not guilty. They cite additional evidence stemming from an additional felony charge — possession of burglary tools — filed in February.
There is also an additional complaint that she violated chamber rules on conflicts of interest when she voted on a procedural motion blocking a debate and, later, a vote on her expulsion from the chamber.
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct, whose membership is split evenly among Republicans and Democrats, could not agree on how to move forward during its Thursday meeting The deadlock means both complaints will remain open until after Mitchell's trial, scheduled for June, or sooner if there is additional information related to her case, like a release of police body camera footage or any sort of plea agreement in her criminal case.
Mitchell is accused of breaking into her stepmother's home to retrieve her late father's ashes, among other things. She denies the charges.
A judge recently granted Mitchell's request to move her trial until after the legislative session is complete. It was initially scheduled for January.
"It doesn't need to wait for her criminal trial to conclude to be decided, the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct should immediately act to prevent Senator Mitchell from participating in any vote associated with her political future, and should take any and all disciplinary action warranted by this clear violation of the public trust," said Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, about his new complaint alleging a conflict of interest.
Mitchell addressed the ethics panel for the first time on Thursday. Though she said little related to the criminal complaint and the allegations against her, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination, she asked the panel to again delay action on the initial filing. She then asked the committee to dismiss the conflict of interest claims.
She told the four-member committee that she would have excused herself from the underlying motion to expel her had such a vote taken place. Instead, it was ruled out of order — a procedural move for which she did, indeed, vote.
She argued her employment in the Senate does not amount to a financial stake, according to state statute.
"Trying to relate an actual procedural vote to a different hypothetical vote I might or might not have taken is inappropriate. Even if we do follow that red herring argument, any votes related to this matter do not meet the financial interest definition of mandatory excusal," she said.
This story will be updated.
