Conflict-of-interest bill stalls
Measure would require disclosure before debate
A proposed bill that would have forced legislators to declare any conflicts of interest on a bill before debating it on the floor failed to move out of a joint House and Senate Rules Committee meeting Thursday morning, meaning that a seemingly annual debate is ended before the 2006 session even begins.
Currently, legislators are required to submit a conflict of interest form and identify, on the floor, any conflicts that will financially benefit either themselves or immediate family before casting a vote on an issue. The proposed bill, however, sought to expand that floor requirement so that any conflict had to be explained before speaking, with the failure to do so potentially resulting in a misdemeanor violation.
Committee members worried that requiring such a disclosure before debating a bill would cause a number of problems, especially since legislators will not always be able to remember or comprehend every conflict in the midst of a debate. Additionally, by not requiring it before a vote but only before debating, legislators with conflicts — including direct financial benefit — would be able to avoid identifying those conflicts.
Rep. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake, the sponsor of the bill, said that verbally identifying the conflicts would help clarify individual legislators' positions on an issue. While those conflicts are available in the disclosure forms, it is impossible to track every conflict over the course of a session.
"We're not changing the voting rights on a particular piece of legislation," Romero said. "We're just asking that members identify the conflicts . . . It's the right thing to do, for fellow legislators and our constituents."
A similar bill, sponsored by Rep. Dave Ure, R-Kamas, failed last year, although it did pass the House Rules Committee. Thursday he said that the verbal disclosures were needed because the written forms are next to impossible to track, often illegible, and seldom referenced by legislators or the public.
"We can nitpick this right to death, and absolutely destroy it," he said. "But the whole point is to educate the body . . . This rule is doing nothing more than allowing our peers to make an intelligent decision when we stand up and speak about an issue."
E-mail: jloftin@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.