The Joint Rules Committee killed the idea.

This is baffling. If you were a representative trying to make up your mind whether to support a bill, wouldn't you want to know whether the other members arguing for it or against it had a vested interest?

Several members of the committee said that it would just be too hard to remember all the boards and charities they serve on, let alone all of their personal investments, in the heat of debate.

Sorry, but that's hard to swallow.

No one expects every lawmaker to know all the companies his mutual fund invests in. But realistically, no one is going to expect a lawmaker to disclose that.

When it comes to a real conflict, like whether a lawmaker owns an interest in a Utah business that will obviously benefit from a bill or has a spouse who works for a Utah government agency whose budget is up for consideration, it is hard to believe that a lawmaker doesn't instantly know that he or she has a direct financial conflict. In that case, the lawmaker should disclose that interest out loud so that every other lawmaker can evaluate his or her arguments accordingly.

It's simple courtesy. It's basic honesty.

There are certain professions where this could be problematic. Lawyers and accountants, especially those in big firms, might have so many possible conflicts resulting from clients that it would be hard to keep track. But even in this case, the lawmaker would know his direct conflicts and should disclose them to other members during debate.

Conversely, if a member has so many irons in the state's financial fires that he can't keep track of them all, maybe he should not be in the Legislature.

Existing law requires that legislators fill out a financial disclosure form. They also must reveal, on the floor, any conflicts before voting on a measure. But the handwriting on the forms often is illegible, and a piece of paper in some file drawer does nothing to enlighten members or the public during debate.

The original proposal before the Joint Rules Committee would have made failure to disclose a crime. That may be going too far. Perhaps public censure should be the penalty. But surely a legislative rule requiring verbal disclosure is not too much to ask.