Initiative petition squabble may end in agreement today

Organizers of an ethics reform initiative criticized the Lieutenant Governor's Office for not releasing petitions Monday for distribution, saying they suspected an 11th-hour delay tactic fueled by opposition from the political establishment.

But the petitions could be certified today , Lt. Gov. Greg Bell said during a hastily called meeting with initiative organizers Monday evening.

Bell, the state's chief elections officer, called proponents' arguments "brilliant" and "very helpful," adding, "If the initiative is not patently unconstitutional, then it should move forward."

The grass-roots group Utahns for Ethical Government -- organized by many of the same people who drove a successful anti-voucher ballot measure in 2007 -- recently completed seven public hearings required by state law and intended to start collecting the necessary signatures at an optional public meeting tonight in Ogden.

Time is critical, they say, because they face an April 15 deadline to collecta bout 95,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. They have until mid-November if they want to require the Legislature to take up the issue in its 2010 session.

Group leaders Monday said they were disappointed when Bell's legal counsel, Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts, informed them late last week that Bell had concerns about the complex 21-page initiative and wanted to meet with them behind closed doors.

"Clearly, some legislators

are vehemently opposed to ethics reform, and we are not surprised if Lieutenant Governor Bell suddenly developed concerns on the day the very successful public hearings were completed," Janet Jenson, attorney for Utahns for Ethical Government, said in a news release.

The initiative backers refused a private meeting, saying all such discussions should be conducted in public. So the parties held an open meeting at the Capitol.

Bell's concerns revolved around whether a citizens initiative could regulate conduct for the Legislature as a whole when the Constitution gives the House and Senate that authority separately.

Bell also asked if such an initiative could require that the House speaker and Senate president call for an up-or-down vote on an ethics complaint as the initiative would require.

Finally, Bell wondered if the initiative's fail-safe provision ran crosswise with the state Constitution.

That part of the initiative would require legislative leaders to select a pool of 20 names and randomly choose five to serve staggered five-year terms on an independent ethics advisory commission. If they fail to do so in a timely manner, that task would fall to initiative sponsors.

Roberts, Bell's counsel, argued that the Legislature's current code of conduct is established by rule, not by legislation.

Alan Smith, an attorney and one of the initiative organizers, questioned the strength of that argument.

"They do it by rule, this [initiative] does it by statute," Smith said. "The initiative process is very sweeping and co-equal to the houses of the Legislature."

cmckitrick@sltrib.com