Reader comments
Measure would let legislators with conflict get out of a vote

Bernick states that some are worried that a system like this would allow the majority to not allow a minority member to vote.

This is a ridiculous concern because a bill would still require 38 votes to pass so "forcing" someone to abstain is the same as voting no.

So it allows legislators to declare a conflict and abstain, but what about our nuclear waste friends that didn't declare a conflict? Can others say, uh, that guy has a conflict, so let's not let him vote?

Senator Bramble is to be greatly complimented on the work and time he has put into correcting this significant problem. It is certainly a BIG step in the right direction. Thanks to you Senator Bramble and others who may be working on this. One concern I have in the proposed legislation is that they are considering a "fiancial conflict thresholed of $10,000". That appears to me to be too high. How about taking one or two zeros off that.

If our legislators don't want to address controversial issues, then why are they in office? This is not representing their constituents; it's representing their own special interests. I don't expect someone I helped elect to abstain from their responsibility to study and then vote on issues according to what the majority of their constituents desire. Whether I agree with their vote or not, I believe our lawmakers should at least contribute. After all, that is what they are in office for, isn't it?

Bramble doesn't want to leave it up to just individual members to decide conflicts for themselves....
OH MY, the legislature just gets in worse and worse shape. Now they shouldn't even make decisions for themselves? They're just supposed to do what they're told? If they have an idea that doesn't go with the flow they're told to abstain?
I really think this is wrong on so very many levels. I'm not sure what we, as citizens can do, but it's obvious something needs to be done to get the legislature serving the public interests, not their own.

I find myself in regular disagreement Senator Bramble on any number of issues, but he should be applauded on his current efforts to maintain the public's confidence in our legislators and the integrity of the legislative process.

Legislators, who are teachers by profession, may well have a conflict of interest in voting teacher pay-hikes...but there was no real legislative accommodation. The same has been true for individuals employed directly or indirectly by the various other state agencies when the legislators have been called upon to decide agency budget issues.

The only suggestion I might offer for consideration would be to perhaps have a panel of retired judges deciding to either permit legislators to recuse themselves, require their vote, or demand individual legislators be excused on votes where a conflict of interest is identified or disclosed. The legislature could thus circumvent the obvious accusation by partisans that leadership decisions & rulings on fiscal conflicts of interest would be motivated for political reasons and abused to support their own legislative agendas.

Does this mean that all of the public employees who are legislators can't vote on appropriation bills that affect their pay or their department's budget?

It's about time.

Should Governor Herbert (being a developer by trade) excuse himself on all the development bills?