Utah legislators mull ethics reform

Utah legislators will pick new ethics rules from behind Door 1, Door 2 or Door 3.

And members of a special ethics study committee, meeting for the first time Wednesday, are leaning toward Door 3.

The Door 3 option would be a mix of broad, general ethics rules and the ability to ask a new independent ethics committee to give individual recommendations on specific cases. The group would also give opinions on ethical complaints, in conjunction with House and Senate ethics standing committees, which over time would make up "case law" that lawmakers and citizens could see as defining proper and improper lawmaker conduct.

The Door 1 option would be to make a specific list of do's and don'ts, with defined penalties for each. That won't work, several lawmakers said.

The Door 2 option is to keep the broad, general code, which some legislators and citizen watchdog groups say is basically meaningless, allowing for severe ethical breaches with no penalties.

Citizens, the news media and legislators need to understand that "there will never be certainty" about legislative ethical conduct when part-time lawmakers with private businesses work with government, said John Fellows, chief legislative counsel.

Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, said it is part of his legislative job to take personal calls from constituents who are having a problem with the state Tax Commission or the Driver's License Bureau or any other state agency. He, in turn, calls the top boss of that agency, and he asks them to "at least talk" to Urquhart's constituent. "They need to know that they are being listened to" by the state bureaucracy. Urquhart says he repeatedly says to the state boss that he's not trying to influence the outcome of the ultimate decision. "And I ask" the bureaucrat "to do the right thing."

But does that call place "undue influence" on a government official? The current, broad legislative code of conduct says lawmakers can't apply "undue influence," said Fellows, but it's not clear how that is defined.

During controversial House Ethics Committee hearings in 2008, the overly broad code of conduct was roundly criticized by legislators themselves.

As a result, the Interim Ethics Committee, a bipartisan group of members of the House and Senate, is tasked with addressing the code before the 2011 Legislature.