Utah's 104 part-time legislators have a bundle of possible conflicts of interest, newly filed forms show.
That's not to say that such conflicts are ruling legislative action - the conflicts were there before lawmakers had to list them publicly. But at least now such possible problems are open for public view.After contentious battles in the 1991 Legislature concerning campaign reform, legislative ethics and lobbyist disclosure - in which no conflict-of-interest bills passed - legislative leaders promised last spring that a new, tougher legislative conflict-of-interest rule would be adopted early in the 1992 session. It was.
House Speaker Craig Moody, R-Sandy, even went so far as to copy each filing and send each one to all 75 representatives so they would know all of their colleagues' conflicts.
House GOP and Democratic leaders promised that the new conflict-of-interest reports from their members would specifically detail where possible problems may arise. And many of the House filings are complete, listing businesses and stocks owned by members.
Senate leaders promised the same thing, but, unfortunately, many senators weren't as specific as their House colleagues. That, in part, is probably because House leaders went the extra mile and included a specific form that asks legislators to list businesses and/or investments in which they own $10,000 or more.
Thus, most House members listed businesses by name. Many senators, on the other hand, interpreted the new ethics rule to mean they had to list business categories - like real estate or farming - in which they own $10,000 or more.
For years, House members were supposed to file a written report with the House clerk listing possible conflicts of interest. Some did and took the form seriously. Others filed but with frivolous entries - one year a House member listed everything as a conflict because he's a member of the human race. Some didn't file at all.
Until a new conflict-of-interest rule was passed earlier this session, senators didn't have to file a written statement. However, it was a Senate rule that senators were supposed to orally declare a possible conflict of interest when voting on the floor. Many did that; others didn't. However, unlike the new rule, the old rule didn't require members to say what that conflict was. Some did; others didn't.
Both the old conflict-of-interest House and Senate rules and the new rule passed this session contain no penalties for non-compliance. Over the years a number of attempts by legislators to place conflict-of-interest matters in law - rather than internal rule - failed. Often, the bills didn't even get out of either the House or Senate secret rules committees for a hearing.
Another attempt may be made this year to place conflict of interest in law. Utah legislators - like their congressional colleagues - have been loath to place ethics matters in law. By adopting an internal rule, they keep ethics matters within the legislative branch of government. Making it a law places them before the executive branch - where an elected county attorney or the attorney general could pursue them in court, perhaps for political reasons.
In addition to filing their new conflict-of-interest forms this year, most lawmakers also answered a questionnaire of possible conflicts of interest mailed to them last spring by the Deseret News before legislative leaders announced they'd push for passage of a new, tougher conflict-of-interest rule.
It's impossible to list all the conflicts of interest listed by all 104 legislators. Here are some highlights:
- Rep. Fred Hunsaker, R-Logan, went well beyond the letter of the new rule. He's a stock broker/investor and listed all stocks as of May 1991 in which he owned $10,000 or more. He listed $330,000 worth of stock. If he's buying the specifically listed stock, it must be good. Questioned about it, he joked he hopes potential clients don't read his form, since they could invest in what he does and not hire him as their financial counselor.
- Sen. Dixie Leavitt, R-Cedar City, in his Senate filing listed only broad categories of business interests - insurance, banking, natural gas, agriculture, etc. However, in his response to the Deseret News questionnaire, Leavitt listed by name a number of companies in which he holds interests, giving a much more complete picture of his financial dealings and possible conflicts of interest.
- Rep. Walt Bain, R-Farmington, and Sen. Paul Fordham, D-Salt Lake, on their legislative forms listed no possible conflicts at all.
- A number of legislators listed the LDS Church as a possible conflict, because they are faithful members of that religion. None of the non-Mormon legislators listed their churches as possible conflicts of interest.
Unanswered in the new rule is a difficult problem: How should legislator/attorneys deal with interests their clients may have? Some legislator/attorneys, like Rep. Jerrald Jensen, R-Salt Lake, listed by name some clients who may have matters before the Legislature.
Other legislator/attorneys, like Sen. Fred Finlinson, R-Murray, didn't name clients, listing only areas of the law in which they work - in Finlinson's case, natural resource and water law. Finlinson declined to name his clients in the Deseret News questionnaire, also.
Finlinson made an interesting point, however. He said some of his clients may be affected by legislative action from time to time but that such an impact wouldn't mean more or less money for his law firm - and so listing those clients doesn't fall within the new rule.
The question of attorney/lawmakers is a difficult one for legislatures around the country. Many attorney/lawmakers say naming clients may mean they'd lose those clients and so such a rule would force them from legislative service.
Others argue that attorneys - and other legislators whose businesses involve client work - could be hired and asked to sponsor or support specific legislation, resulting in tremendous conflicts of interest.