After tales that some lobbyists sexually harassed legislative interns, the Legislature is considering requiring lobbyists to take an annual course about what behavior is and is not acceptable.
If they fail to complete it, they could lose their lobbying license — until they pay a $1,000 fine and finish the class. If they are found to have sexually harassed someone, they could have their lobbying license revoked for five years and face a $2,000 fine.
The House Government Operations Committee approved HB110 on a 6-3 vote on Monday and sent it to the full House.
Adam Brown, a Brigham Young University professor who oversees and trains most legislative interns from colleges around the state, testified, “It’s for their sake that I hope you pass this bill.”
While he said problems are rare, they have happened often enough that steps toward better protection are warranted.
One example, he said, was “an intern in a recent session who found ‘true love’ with a lobbyist until the day after the session ended, when the lobbyist broke it off because the lobbyist no longer needed the intern.”
He also pointed lawmakers to a story by Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Gehrke, who quoted an anonymous intern who told about trying to avoid a lobbyist who leered at her.
One day he approached her and said, “Man, if I was 20 years younger, I would take you and push you against the wall and kiss you right now.”
A few months later, after the session, she recounted the comment to the legislator she had been working for. The lawmaker complained to the legislative counsel’s office and was told there was nothing it could do — the Legislature was no longer in session, she was no longer an employee, and lobbyists aren’t regulated by the state.
Rep. Jeremy Peterson, R-Ogden, sponsor of the bill, said it would give the state some power to protect interns by requiring training and creating penalties for harassment.
(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Rep. Jeremy Peterson discusses HB 175, the oversight committee creation bill, during the House Government Operations Standing Committee, Thursday, Feb. 1, 2018.
Peterson said, “After last year’s session, it became apparent to our legislative staff that something more was needed than we currently have on the books. That was due to some anecdotal things that happened.”
Jeff Hartley, a registered lobbyist, opposed the bill.
“I have no objection to the training. I have objection to the way we’re being singled out as a class of people who are required to take the training when we are not your employees. We don’t work for the state. We do not work for the Legislature.”
He said if lobbyists are required to take such training, the Legislature seemingly should require anyone else who is often around the Legislature and its interns — from news reporters to caterers and technology contractors — to also take it.
Hartley argued that laws banning sexual harassment are already on the books and should provide sufficient protection.
Lawmakers and legislative employees also are required to undergo annual sexual-harassment training.
The proposal first surfaced last November at an interim committee, where it was rejected as being “too paternalistic,” in one legislator’s words.
Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, argued against the measure at the time, saying, “The effect is we are regulating our guests.”
Thurston, who earlier this session was stripped of two committee assignments for an inappropriate comment to a female legislative employee, was absent from Tuesday’s committee hearing on HB110.
In a private meeting with Thurston, legislative leaders and a human resources official were described as addressing “a pattern of practice” by the lawmaker, according to a memo obtained through an open-records request.
Follow @LeeDavi49903322