Reader comments
Ethics panel to hold hearing on Hughes

Yeah they want the doors closed and the public to not know what is happening so that this will be dropped and the issue will not be discussed again. How sad! How telling is this about Utah politics!

The House Ethics Committee-

Now that is a contradiction of terms.

It is easy for them to say they asked for the hearings to be open to the public when they knew darn well that the rules of the House do not allow that. Sorry Hughes not everyone in your district are idiots that don't see what a problem you are to having an honest system of government.

Hughes your days are numbered.

Vote out all the sitting members of the House in November.

So, if I understand this correctly, the legislature has written their own rules about how to police themselves and the rules say that ethics complaints, testimony, and hearings, should take place behind closed doors. And all members of the committee and the accused are up for re-election this year.

Yeah, that doesn't create a conflict of interest at all.

If it's behind closed doors, how is the public supposed to know about what's going on in their own government (especially when it comes to ethics complaints)? For all we know, the witnesses could be asked questions about how they think the Jazz will do this year or what the weather is like outside.

I just hope that at the very least this episode reveals the flaws in the current ethics rules.

I smell another Good Ol' Boy whitewash coming. Glad handing and back slapping--now there's and objective committee if ever there was one . . .

Isn't this like the fox guarding the hen house?

You get the feeling the are taking the case for disclosing the potential bribe, more seriously than the actual bribe. Amazing.

If they want a true ethics committee, they should have the everyday worker, no CEO's, no lobbyists. Common folk that can have no interaction with the legislators or lobbyists.

Isn't it amazing how years ago the corruption was the mobsters bribing legislators and that was all bad. But now our elected officials, federal, state and even local, have voted to allow bribery to be legal, as long as they reap the rewards. Lobbyist gifts don't really buy votes, campaign contributions, forced golf outings and fund raisers that the lobbyists have to attend to have access. Being able to spend campaign funds on anything you want and keep it once you leave office. It stinks to high heaven. Ethics, it amazing how they justify it and keep allowing more and more.

The fact that they closed the ethics hearings is outrageous! These legislators represent the citizens, and we citizens are ENTITLED to know if their votes are being bought by corporations or special interest groups such as pro-voucher organizations. We are ENTITLED to know if they have committed unethical, unscrupulous or illegal acts. If Greg Hughes has committed bribery or extortion, as alleged by his peers in the House (including Republican legislators), then the CITIZENS are entitled to know. We MUST DEMAND ETHICS REFORM -- but FIRST, we must VOTE OUT GREG HUGHES and his cronies who make these "legislative rules", including the entire Republican Leadership, such as Greg Curtis and John Valentine. If they can't see how terrible this is, we need to teach them ALL a lesson.

A broken system,

"So, if I understand this correctly, the legislature has written their own rules about how to police themselves and the rules say that ethics complaints, testimony, and hearings, should take place behind closed doors."

There's a reason ethics hearings are private and that is to protect the innocent and to avoid any undue influence the general public may place on their elected representatives to either vote in favor or against those under investigation. These meetings should be closed in the interest of doing justice.

What interest does the public have in a public meeting? Absolutely none. We will know the outcome at the time it is made known. That isn't changed by open or private meetings. The only reason those who advocate open meetings have to do so is the belief that they have the right to influence its outcome.

"If it's behind closed doors, how is the public supposed to know about what's going on in their own government (especially when it comes to ethics complaints)?"

You will know what is going on as soon as it is made known but you don't care because it is all about you and you want to control everything.

Matilda,

"The fact that they closed the ethics hearings is outrageous!"

Why is it outrageous? You can't give one valid reason why an ethics meeting should be public but I can give several for why it should be private. We don't elect juries so they don't have to worry about their re-election if they convict or acquit based on the evidence but legislators have to worry about that and therefore these meetings should be private otherwise political considerations would influence the outcome.

"These legislators represent the citizens, and we citizens are ENTITLED to know if their votes are being bought by corporations or special interest groups such as pro-voucher organizations.

You aren't the only citizen. I too am a citizen and I disagree with your ignorant comments.

Your argument is that you should know what is going on in these meetings (not the outcome because you will know it regardless) so you can influence the outcome prior to a decision being announced. Jury deliberations aren't public while testimony is generally public (but not always) but the problem with having public testimony and deliberations in ethics investigations is that the jury is up for election. Your opinion is that of tyrants.

Matilda,

"We MUST DEMAND ETHICS REFORM -- but FIRST, we must VOTE OUT GREG HUGHES and his cronies who make these "legislative rules", including the entire Republican Leadership, such as Greg Curtis and John Valentine. If they can't see how terrible this is, we need to teach them ALL a lesson."

As a Democrat I take issue with this comment because it clearly proves that your motivation is political. This is why these meetings must be private. Those rules weren't just made by Republicans but also by Democrats and the reason for private ethics hearings is to protect the innocent and avoid voters having undue influence in the outcome.

Jury deliberations aren't public because of this and there are times when testimony is given when a Judge will order the room cleared of the general public. They do so to protect the witnesses, the accused and the jury from a meddlesome general public who has as a result of the right to vote obtained a big head.

The only reason why criminal trials are public is because the jury doesn't have to worry about the general public calling them or losing votes because of political considerations. This is about fairness.

For the sake of justice and public confidence. I hope all involved will be offered a lie detector test.

If not then there may always be a cloud over the innocent.

I hope the legislature will also take this as an opportunity to improve ethics. Disallow any gifts, period, at the same time raise legislative pay/ and or expenses so this will not affect them financially in a negative way.

The Joint Rules state that during preliminary inquiries the meeting is closed to the public. The respondent and respondent's counsel may be present during the presentation of testimony and evidence to the committee. Only Ethics Committee members and staff may be present during other portions of the preliminary inquiry. A count is not proved unless a majority of the committee so determine by vote. The committee may,for any count that has been voted as proved, recommend censure,explusion, denial or limitation of any right, power, or privilege of the respondent, and other action that the committee determines is appropriate. At the beginning of the preliminary inquiry, in order to expedite the committee's investigatikon, the committee co-chairs and the respondent may agree in writing that procedural requires pertaining to a Disciplinary Hearing are waived. If there is no waiver, the Disciplinary Hearing is scheduled. The disciplinary hearing is open to the public. You may access the Joint Rules by typing Utah State Legislature in yahoo, msn, or other and search.
The home page will come up and go down to publications, click and locate rules and click.
ll

Before you get your undies all in a knot, remember grand juries are not only done in secret, the accused is not even allowed to attend with counsel to hear what is said against him or her.

"Karrenberg said listening to testimony "there is no way this conversation" between Lawrence and Hughes "could be considered a bribe, no way.""

If not a bribe, this certainly IS harassment. The lack of ethics in this whole discourse is pretty typical of government in Utah. Curtis should also be in the cross hairs for doing the same thing to Reisen that he accuses Riesen of doing to Hughes.

Ethics charges should be brought up against all voucher supporters.

It should not matter at this point if Lawrence wanted it public or not. What matters is the truth.

If Hughes told Lawrence that he could help her if she voted for vouchers or took a walk then there is a problem. If he didn't then there are still problems on Capitol Hill. We need more balance, and we need to stop electing anyone whose heart is anything less than being a representative of the people.

Commoner,

Thanks for pointing out that grand juries meet behind closed doors. However, the grand jury does not have power to issue a verdict or sentencing as this House Committee has the power to do. So it's not really the same thing.

This is a case of he said she said. Hughes is the Chair of the Conservative Caucus which gives money to candidates for the purpose of reelection and campaigning.

In 2006 Susan Lawrence and Greg Hughes both knew Phil Reisen was going to run for her seat and everyone knew she had no chance against him. Was money offered by Hughes to Lawrence, probably; was it for her vote for vouchers; who knows?

Lots of deals are made behind closed doors, Hughes and Lawrence weren't great friends so I wouldn't put it past Hughes to have offered her help. It's up to the ethics committee to decide whether that offer was a "bribe".

My guess is that he will be cleared, but this has done significant damage to his image and has put his reelection at risk.

Riesen is a hero.

This is how Republicans govern. Close the hearing doors. Close the caucuses. Close the primaries. We're in charge, we govern, and the public can press its nose to the window....