The Problem with Legislative Ethics Waivers
Many government ethics professionals don't like waivers. I think
they're valuable. Basically, they are requests for an advisory
opinion in which the official recognizes that certain conduct would
constitute an ethics violation, but wants a determination that he
can engage in the conduct due to special circumstances. The
result of such a determination is the creation of a new, narrow
exception to a rule. This is a good way of preventing bad unforeseen
consequences of a rule. But waivers must be given only after a public hearing.<br>
<br>
The value of a government ethics waiver is completely different
when it is not an independent ethics officer or commission who makes
the determination, and when there are no special circumstances that
require a new exception. In fact, a waiver given by one or more
officials without a very good
reason sends the message that officials won't apply ethics rules
when they don't feel like it or will favor certain of their colleagues (and, if they are in need of a waiver in the future, themselves). This makes a mockery of an ethics
program and undermines the public's trust.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://theadvocate.com/news/9039451-123/senators-brother-gets-exception…; target="”_blank”">a
recent article in the <i>Advocate</a>,</i>
this sort of harmful self-waivering is common in the Louisiana
legislature. By a vote of 58-24, the house approved a waiver for a
former state senator to lobby the legislature even though his
brother is a member and, therefore, he is prohibited from lobbying
the legislature.<br>
<br>
It's hard to believe that the former senator would be destitute if
he did not lobby the state legislature. The reason given for
allowing the waiver, by the state representative who filed a <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/450" target="”_blank”">legislative immunity
complaint</a> back in 2007, is that "similar instances were
approved in the past." In other words, the state legislature can
ignore the ethics law for no reason other than it has ignored it in
the past for other people. It doesn't even have to amend the law. It
can effectively do so under the radar. In fact, the bill does not
even provide the lobbyist's name. It simply says that “the immediate
family member was a registered lobbyist ....for at least one year
prior to Jan. 9, 2012.” This is not a transparent or fair waiver
process. Such waivers should end.<br>
<br>
See <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/legislative-bodies-should-not-be-prov…; target="”_blank”">my 2012 blog post</a> about the problems with local bills providing ethics waivers, also in Louisiana.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---