SL Trib: Conflicts of Interests Are Found in Many Bills

Two common sense proposed resolutions to allow legislators to avoid conflicts of interest

To kick off the discussion as we begin the new week, we'll highlight an enlightening article from yesterday's Deseret News, dealing with a topic that's near and dear to our hearts here at Weber County Forum, ethics reform in general, and conflicts of interest, specifically. Here's the gist of the problem, culled from Bob Bernick, Jr.'s lead paragraphs:

More than half of Utah's 104 part-time legislators have introduced bills with likely conflicts of interests, a study by the Deseret News shows.
The newspaper found that 61 percent of House members and 55 percent of senators are sponsoring bills that could affect their private or business lives in some ways. [...]
A conflict of interest is generally defined as a conflict between a person's private interests (financial or otherwise) and his or her public position.
But the Legislature's conflict-of-interest rules are so vague (and, at the same time, so narrow on financial matters) that legislators themselves, much less the public, often don't know exactly when they need to declare a conflict, or what to do about it when they do. [Emphasis added]

Although the main theme of the article deals with efforts to tighten up definitions, and to provide more clear guidance for legislators who may have conflicts of interest, there's a sub-theme to this session's conflict of interest story which particularly caught our eye:

While Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and a number of legislators are talking about ethics reform in this Legislature, conflict of interest appears to be a weak sister that's not getting much attention.
So far, there are only a few bills dealing with conflicts. The main push comes in two resolutions sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo. [S.R. 5 and S.J.R. 13]
Both Bramble bills deal with allowing legislators to declare a conflict of interest and abstain from voting on the bill or appropriation in which the lawmaker may have a conflict.
Currently, legislators have to vote if they are present on the floor. They can even be rounded up by state troopers and brought into the chambers and forced to vote — even if they have a conflict on a matter and don't want to vote. [Emphasis and links added]

There are numerous ethics reform bills rattling around the legislature this year; so many, in fact, that it's hard to keep track. At this stage of the game it's impossible to predict what new ethics guidelines will ultimately be enacted this session.

Nevertheless, the wisdom of passing Senator Bramble's two proposed resolutions seem a "no brainer" to us. Regardless of the form of new ethics reforms which may emerge this year, any new legislation will inevitably expose legislators to charges of voting on matters in which they have conflicts, unless the current mandatory voting rules are changed. Under present rules, even ethically conscientious legislators have no way to voluntarily disentangle themselves from their own conflicts of interest.

We therefore urge our readers to contact their legislative representatives in The Senate and The House to urge passage of Sen. Bramble's proposed common sense rule amendments, permitting legislators to declare and abstain from voting on any bill or appropriation in which lawmakers believe they have a conflict of interest.

Comments are invited as always.