Do ethics reform right

State lawmakers have made about 20 bill requests for ethics reform legislation. They range from establishing limits on the use of campaign cash to the function of the legislative ethics committee. It is heartening that these issues are on the radar screens of so many state lawmakers. They clearly appreciate that protecting the integrity of the lawmaking process needs to be a top priority.

It is not possible to comment on the substance of the bill requests since they are merely titles. But one proposal floated by Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, raises questions. Hughes, who was cleared of alleged ethics violations shortly before the general election, plans to sponsor legislation to establish an "independent" inspector general's office in state government to handle legislative ethics and other complaints against state employees.

First, to whom would the inspector general be accountable? Would his or her decisions be subject to appeal?

Aside from legislative ethics issues, what state employees would the inspector oversee? Isn't that the job of the executive branch?

The overarching question, of course, is the "independence" of such a position. Who would select the inspector general? What safeguards could be established to ensure the "independent" inspector general is not overly partisan? Would the Legislature have to accept the inspector general's decisions as final and binding?

Would an inspector general duplicate other functions of government, such as the state auditor?

Seemingly, some of the issues that come before the Legislature's ethics committee could be better handled by lawmakers themselves if the function and rules of the committee were better defined. Shouldn't lawmakers, who swear to uphold the laws of the state when they take office, police their own members? One means to ensure that legislative ethics committee meetings are not hijacked by politics is to open the hearings to the public.

There have been relatively few instances in recent history in which the ethics committee has convened to address a complaint against a state lawmaker. That either means there have been few issues that have risen to that degree of seriousness, or state lawmakers lack confidence in the process so they attempt to resolve their concerns through other means. The latter is a significant concern.

Whatever the case, state lawmakers need to carefully consider the implications of creating this position. It may well be that the existing committee would suffice if better rules and procedures were adopted.