An Ethics Reform Petition Moves Forward in Utah
It's official. According to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_13445835" target="”_blank”"><b>an article</b></a> in
yesterday's Salt Lake City <i>Tribune</i>, a comprehensive <a href="http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org/finalversion.petition.pdf" target="”_blank”"><b>ethics
reform petition</b></a> has been okayed for distribution, with the goal of
placing it on the November 2010 ballot. That requires 95,000 signatures
on a 21-page petition that is far from easy reading.<br>
<br>
How bad are the ethics laws in Utah? In the words of the petition sponsor, <a href="http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org/" target="”_blank”"><b>Utahns for Ethical
Government</b></a>, "the legislature has been unwilling to enact
enforceable ethical standards of conduct or a workable process for
enforcing its own rules. ... A troubling, parallel development is that
lobbyists and special interests are free to inject unlimited amounts of
corporate money into Utah’s political system, often by invitation from
legislators who, again and again, go back to the same contributors for
more and more donations to personal projects, committees, caucuses, and
leadership campaigns. ... Utah’s financial disclosure laws have been
ranked 47th worst in the nation. Forty-four states limit financial
contributions to legislators; Utah does not. Eighty-one percent of all
money funding legislative campaigns in Utah comes from special
interests."<br>
<br>
The petition seeks an independent ethics commission for the state
legislature only. The commission would have no jurisdiction over the
executive branch or over local governments. An executive branch
petition would be the next step, the sponsor says.<br>
<br>
The petition is full of unusual rules and language, some good, some not
so good. On the good side, it sets an annual EC appropriation at a
specific dollar amount, or more. It smartly prohibits legislative
counsel from representing legislators before the EC, while reimbursing
for attorney fees. It has a long statute of limitations, which doesn't
begin to run until misconduct could have been discovered through
publicly available information; that is, if the conduct secret, there's
effectively no statute of limitations. It takes lobbyists totally out
of the campaign contribution picture, and that includes corporations
that hire lobbyists or lobby themselves. It prevents legislators from
influencing civil and criminal proceedings, and citizen initiatives.<br>
<br>
The rules for who can be an EC member are excellent, even if the
petition allows legislative leaders to select them.<br>
<br>
The most interesting definition is that of "insider":
<ul>“Insider” of a legislator includes (i)
any relative of the legislator, (ii) any person in relation to whom the
legislator is a control person, (iii) any person who is a controlling
person in relation to a legislator, and (iv) any client of a legislator.
</ul>
The jargon is oppressive, but the idea is a good way to bring together
many people and entities in relationship to an official.<br>
<br>
Some unfortunate provisions include almost total confidentiality of EC
proceedings, legislative approval of EC enforcement recommendations, the lack of
clear penalties (but felony is mentioned, which requires criminal
enforcement), and the involvement of the EC in determining whether any
legislator's law-breaking bears on his or her "fitness to serve,"
allowing complaints to be filed every time a legislator gets a DUI
citation or misses an alimony payment.<br>
<br>
An especially unusual and unfortunate aspect of the petition is the
major role given to complainants, who must actually make a case before
the EC. This means that ordinary citizens cannot bring complaints,
unless they're wealthy or supported by an organization (unlike
legislators, their fees are not reimbursed). In addition, three
complainants are required.<br>
<br>
And since the EC cannot act on its own intitative, there can be no
hotline or other way of getting information confidentially. Therefore,
people in the know, such as legislative aides, are not in a position to
alert the EC to situations they might investigate. The result may be
that most complaints will be political in origin (three or more party
members), or will originate with public interest groups who will put
forward three individuals as complainants.<br>
<br>
In short, like most ethics codes, this one has its good points and its
bad points. It's so much better to have a legislative body work these
points out, and an EC make recommendations based on its experiences
with the ethics provisions. But Utah seems to have an ethically
disabled legislative process, so this is the way ethics reform has to
proceed. Legislators should be ashamed that it's come to this, but
instead it's likely that they will do what they can to keep control of
the ethics process by passing a much weaker ethics law next year and
asking people to vote against the initiative.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705330310/Wanted-ethics-reforms.html…; target="”_blank”"><b>an
article</b></a> in the Deseret <i>News</i>, a September 2009 poll shows that the
legislature is completely out of step with the public. 85% said they
favor the ethics initiative. Some more specific poll results:<br>
<ul> 81% support banning
all gifts to legislators from lobbyists, except for a "light
refreshments."<br>
74% favor limiting campaign contributions to legislators to $2,500 per individual and
$5,000 per PAC.<br>
56% support banning
campaign donations from businesses, labor unions, and nonprofits.</ul>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>