Ethics & Rules, explained

Morris describes the Ethics & Rules Office as established by law in Title 2 of the Navajo Nation Code (he cites subsection 3786), sitting under the legislative branch — administratively under the Speaker’s Office. Its purpose, as he puts it: maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct for elected and appointed officials, make the ethics laws and rulings available, provide education, and protect the Nation’s interest in fair, honest, and efficient government. Staffing is also set by law (he cites subsection 3788): a director — hired by the executive director of the Office of Legislative Services — plus administrative staff as budgets allow.

1. Intake form. Anyone can walk in and fill one out. Morris stresses it is not yet a complaint — and says people often wave an intake form around claiming “I filed a complaint at ethics.” The form itself says intake at the top.

2. Preliminary inquiry. The director or presenting officer legally assesses whether the facts could even support an investigation — sometimes interviewing the person who filed. Some matters get routed elsewhere: personnel issues to HR, possible crimes to the prosecutor’s office.

3. Investigation. If there are sufficient facts of a possible ethics violation, investigators are assigned — interviews, records, subpoenas.

4. Hearing at Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Cases are heard by the Office of Hearings and Appeals — which sits in the executive branch while Ethics & Rules sits in the legislative branch. Morris says that split is deliberate: it keeps the office that investigates separate from the body that judges. Only the Ethics & Rules Office can file an ethics case with OHA. In his years dealing with OHA, Morris says, he never saw it act contrary to law.

5. Sanctions or dismissal. If a violation is found, sanctions are issued under the Ethics in Government Law (he cites subsection 3780); if not, the case is dismissed.

Two structural points, in his account. First, the pipeline runs through one seat: the legal assessment at step 2 requires a director or presenting officer, and the office was averaging 30–50 intakes a month — so a vacancy in that seat stalls everything behind it. Second, where the office sits creates pressure: because it reports up through the Speaker’s Office, he recounts a past instance of a speaker seeking information on a case — the law forbids interference, he says, “but it can be done.”

In a separate interview, the office as it stands today — Interim Director Felicia Williams (also an investigator), investigator Albert Benally, and Robert Jumbo — described its work directly. In their account, the office was established in 1998. Its structure on paper: a director’s position, one presenting officer’s position, four investigators, an office aide, and a senior office specialist, reporting up through the Speaker’s Office in the legislative branch — consistent with the Nation’s own directory and with Morris’s description.

On workload: Williams says the office is at 149 cases so far this year, after 179 last year, with about eight referred back with technical assistance. And the interim director notes she carries cases herself on top of running the office — “you can actually say fully we have three investigators moving.” Intakes arrive from community members and are assigned to investigators on a weekly rotation.

Readers can weigh the two accounts side by side: Morris’s structural warning is that the whole pipeline depends on a few legally trained seats; the current office’s own numbers — a director’s seat filled on an interim basis, effectively three investigators moving, 149 cases — describe how thin those seats are stretched, in their own words. This page takes no side between the accounts.

Restart the stalled project to amend the ethics codes, which he describes as largely imported from another jurisdiction and confusing in places — amendment workshops had already identified changes, including accountability for officials who simply stop showing up. Longer term, he points to work from a previous director’s era on moving Ethics & Rules into an independent “fourth branch” of government, out from under any office it might have to investigate — an idea now on the November ballot as part of the proposed constitution.

Much of what both interviews describe — oversight gaps, funding pulled over carryovers, thin investigative capacity — is the territory of the Fraud, Waste, Abuse & Oversight lesson, which explains the watchdog system this office belongs to: the Auditor General, the Controller’s fraud hotline, the White Collar Crime Unit (part of the DOJ’s Office of the Prosecutor), and where each fits. For a live example of the oversight system in motion — hearings, subpoenas, the external audit, and a special prosecutor all at once — see the ZenniHome housing-contracts case study, a matter Morris touches on in this interview. His central claim — the rules exist but aren’t applied — is one voice in a wider pattern: When candidates say the law isn’t followed tallies every candidate raising it.

Thinking about filing something yourself? Start with the practical guide: How to file a complaint (working draft). Official contacts — the Ethics and Rules Office, the fraud hotline, the courts — are in Resources. The complaint-path diagram on the homepage matches the steps above.

This page was prepared with AI assistance from the labeled interview transcript and reviewed by volunteers. It summarizes one person’s on-record account and does not adjudicate any dispute, grade any official, or endorse any candidate. Spot an error? Tell us.