What is more damaging to public confidence than improprieties in high public places? A culture of improprieties.

As this newspaper reported yesterday, some registered lobbyists in Utah have been busily lobbying state lawmakers for or against certain candidates for leadership positions. That is a practice explicitly prohibited by law, and yet it is one that appears to go on anyway with several winks and nods.

Many voters don't focus on the struggles over legislative leadership positions. Having just settled a contentious election season, their minds are now elsewhere. But the speaker of the House wields enormous clout, as do other people in leadership positions.

As an example of how lobbyists could muddle this process, banks and credit unions have been at odds in Utah for years over tax policies and membership requirements. Each side would have a clear interest in manipulating an ally into a key leadership post, and, indeed, each has been accused of so doing.

The danger, of course, is that money and favors, not merits or the public interest, will carry the day.

While lobbyist interference is illegal, the process by which such crimes are brought to justice is ridiculous. First, a complaint must be filed in writing by three lawmakers. Then, the sitting speaker of the House and minority leader convene a secret hearing to interview witnesses. If the complaints were justified, they could then chastise the errant lobbyist privately, and no one would ever know it had happened. Or, they could call for a formal, public hearing in front of the bipartisan House Management Committee.

Considering the speaker and minority leader are central players in the political process, chances are that little ever would be done. Just about everyone worries about the ability to continue wielding influence, as well as about their own political careers. Why take on a crusade that offers few potential benefits and a host of possible problems?

This, together with the Legislature's liberal policy concerning the acceptance of gifts and favors, is more evidence of a Legislature that is losing touch with the public it serves. Lawmakers often blanch at suggestions they tighten their rules, saying they find it insulting to suggest they are less than honest. And yet evidence seems to mount steadily that the process would benefit from a tightening of rules.