Legislators need to 'abstain'

A part-time, citizen legislature brings practical, real-world experience to the table. Generally speaking, that's a good thing. But it is also true that living and working in the real world brings with it conflicts of interest. If not handled appropriately, these can damage the integrity of the lawmaking process.

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.

Why not permit lawmakers to abstain from voting when they have a clear conflict? A recent public opinion poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates for the Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV found that 84 percent of Utahns want lawmakers to be able to abstain from voting on a bill on which they have a personal or professional conflict. The poll also found that 77 percent of Utahns want greater disclosure of conflicts of interest, including requiring legislators who represent clients to disclose those professional relationships.

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.