If given a recusal, even if there was a call of the house — a mandatory vote by all senators — that particular senator would not have to vote, explained Bramble. The same would apply in the House of Representatives.

In addition, Bramble doesn't want to leave it up to just individual members to decide conflicts for themselves.

"Maybe I wouldn't think that I had a conflict, but another (senator) did? Any member could appeal the same way" — through the three leaders and to the whole body — "if they felt I shouldn't vote on a (conflicted) bill."

The conflicted senator would then have to convince his leaders he didn't have a conflict. If one of the leaders themselves was involved in a conflict, he would step aside and the next highest ranking member of leadership would take his place on the three-person panel, explained Bramble.

In private conversations, some have worried that the majority Republicans could, through this process, stop Democrats from voting on some controversial bills, he said. But Bramble believes that in reality that wouldn't happen, as citizens and the media would see such abuse and report it.

Bramble said a recent brouhaha in the House, in which two members were accused of conflicts of interests over the possible siting of a nuclear power plant in Utah, wasn't the impetus for his conflict of interest bill.

"Conflicts of interest have been a topic since I've been up here — seven years — and long before that as well," Bramble said.

The problems of Reps. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, and Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, who had conflicts in the nuclear power plant issue, may have highlighted the problem, he added, "but they weren't the genesis."

Noel and Tilton either chair or are members of House committees that deal directly with nuclear energy. Tilton is an energy consultant who is looking into siting a nuclear power plant in Utah, while Noel heads a local water company that would sell the proposed plant $1 million of water each year.

This past summer, neither man publicly declared a conflict of interest during hearings on nuclear power until after their involvement was publicized by the media, each saying they didn't believe their private jobs were financial conflicts.

Both still contend they don't have a conflict of interest as defined by state law and legislative rule.

Bramble believes the financial conflict threshold, $10,000, is appropriate. And all legislators would still have to file a public conflict of interest form and, when appropriate, verbally declare a conflict before a vote.

But current law goes on to say that legislators must claim conflicts if they are board members or otherwise involved in issues that pose a conflict. "What does all that mean?" he asks.

Bramble said he will better try to define a situation in which an individual legislator, faced with a vote on a conflicted bill, could declare a conflict and not have to vote.

And he wants to allow all legislators to stay in committee hearings but just decline to vote.

"As it now stands, you can just get up and leave a committee meeting before the vote." Unlike votes on the chamber floors, "the chair can't force you to stay and vote. But you should be able to stay in the committee, declare a conflict, and be present but not voting" — not now an option.

---

E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com