Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
What ethics?: Legislature shuns ethics reform that voters asked for
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Since the Utah Legislature's general session ended last week, members of the conservative majority caucus have been spreading the happy news that, by golly, we learned from last year's private school voucher debacle and now we have approved a passel of legislation that aims to please Utah's more moderate majority.

That's the election-year message that the supposedly penitent Republican Legislature is, with exuberant high-fives, proclaiming to voters. And to the degree that the message is accurate, they have reason to slap palms.

But lest it pass unnoticed, these are the same legislators who did absolutely nothing - zilch - about an issue that a majority of Utah voters believe is pressing.

That issue is ethics reform. And we're not talking about the little tweaks that legislative leaders over the years have had the chutzpa to call meaningful reform. If it had been more than window-dressing, there wouldn't be this growing concern about our lawmakers' blatant conflicts of interest, their shameless self-dealing, and the free meals, tickets, trips and other swag with which lobbyists buy influence for special interests on Capitol Hill.

What is needed is what the Legislature has consistently refused to enact: tough curbs on corruption that would transform "legislative ethics" from the oxymoronic term it is today to an independently enforceable code of conduct that would help restore voters' trust in those they have elected to serve them.

The Legislature had a chance this year, with Rep. Roz McGee's House Bill 130, to establish a state commission with subpoena power to hear ethics complaints involving any member of the Legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor or state treasurer. The commission's five members would be selected by the majority and minority caucuses in the House and Senate, and by the governor.

Predictably, McGee's proposed draining of the ethical swamp that inevitably arises from single-party rule, be it Democratic or Republican, wasn't even given a hearing in committee. Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble, chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, talked about strengthening conflict-of-interest laws, but then dropped the idea, saying that - surprise! - he couldn't define what constitutes a conflict.

Besides, he said, "I think it's appropriate for the Legislature to police its own."

Clearly, the only policing of legislative corruption we'll get must come from voters in November.

Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners