Ending the conflict (of interest)

There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]

Webster's dictionary defines conflict of interest as follows: "a conflict between one's obligation to the public good and one's self-interest, as in the case of a public officeholder who owns stock in a company seeking public contracts."

Simple. Straightforward.

And utterly irrelevant ... when it comes to members of the state Legislature, who are bound by law to vote on each and every bill that comes before them if they are present at the Capitol when the vote is taken. It may seem to invite conflict to require everyone to vote, even if they have a conflict of interest regarding a certain issue. But the reason for the requirement is that in a part-time legislature, like Utah's, elected members have other careers; they are school teachers, lawyers, developers, accountants, they sell insurance or real estate, and any number of other pursuits. The requirement that they vote has existed not to force them to capitalize on an obvious conflict of interest, but to prevent them from dodging a politically risky vote.

Every now and then, though, the shortcomings of that one-size-fits-all approach become painfully obvious. Most recently, it was the conflicts of Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, and Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab. Noel is chairman, and Tilton is vice chairman, of the Legislature's Public Utilities and Technology Committee. Noel's day job is executive director of the Kane County Water Conservancy District, which has contracted to sell $1 million worth of water -- and eventually, maybe more -- to a company that is seeking a permit to build a nuclear power plant in Utah. Tilton is an owner of that company.

Neither of the men view such employment as conflicts of interest with their positions in the Legislature. To their credit, the men's colleagues appear to disagree on that subject.

So a member of the Senate's leadership, Majority Leader Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, has announced he is crafting a bill that he hopes will bring a more subtle and effective approach to the issue of conflicts of interest in the Legislature. So far, there's no draft language to view, but according to media reports Bramble's approach would allow a lawmaker with a conflict of interest to approach a panel of three top leaders in his or her respective legislative body -- in the House, for example, it would be the speaker, majority and minority leaders -- to ask permission for recusal on a vote due to a conflict. The panel may agree, or it may not. If it does not, the lawmaker could appeal to the entire House or Senate for a floor vote.

But Bramble's measure wisely would also allow for any member of either body to raise the issue of a conflict of interest concerning another legislator. The same procedure would follow: first a review by the three-member panel, then an appeal to the entire body if the panel declines. Likewise, if a member of the leadership panel has a conflict, they would recuse themselves -- or be compelled to recuse themselves -- before a decision could be made.

This would not preclude lawmakers from having to file the same conflict-of-interest disclosures currently required. We like that aspect of Bramble's thinking, too.

We have long complained the Legislature is insufficiently concerned with its ethics rules and conflicts of interest. If Bramble is successful, this will boost public confidence in legislators' ethical conduct. As the Tilton-Noel circumstance has proven, such reform is overdue.

Comments

Add a comment...

Name:
Comment:
Security Code:	Type the characters to the left in the box exactly as they appear.
Your IP:	38.103.63.60 This address is recorded for security purposes.