Legislators need to 'abstain'
Utah's elected officials need to disclose their conflicts of interest. Such transparency builds public trust in the process of lawmaking and to lawmakers themselves. Utah lawmakers, according to a recent news analysis by Lee Davidson, the Deseret Morning News' former Washington correspondent, and longtime political editor Bob Bernick Jr. found that Utah lawmakers' public reporting of conflicts was very much a mixed bag: Some were very specific, some offered only cursory information, while others claimed to have no conflicts.
Davidson and Bernick also found that 25 percent of the bills introduced in the 2007 general session of the Utah Legislature had apparent conflicts of interest. It's particularly troubling when lawmakers can benefit financially from the passage of such legislation, even when they declare their conflicts.
The Legislature's own operating procedures also require lawmakers to vote on every bill even when they have a clear conflict of interest. Some lawmakers work around the requirement by being off the floor when such votes are taken.
It's difficult, if not unethical, for some professions to disclose those with whom they do business. But to the extent it's possible, lawmakers should disclose their personal and professional conflicts. Then voters can decide whether those interests sway the judgments of their respective representative or senator in a negative manner. The point is that the information is all on the table.
Some could argue that leaving the floor as a yes-no vote is conducted could be construed as an abstention. In truth, it's a cop-out. Abstaining from a vote establishes that the lawmaker was present for the debate, the vote and other of the people's business before the Legislature. That is, after all, the point of representative government.
You can be the first to comment on this story.