Deseret News | Reader comments: Ethics panel to hold hearing on Hughes

Reader comments
Ethics panel to hold hearing on Hughes

Shocker! | 12:21 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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!

harm one of their own? | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

The House Ethics Committee-

Now that is a contradiction of terms.

Dishonest | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Comments continue below

A broken system | 1:30 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Mongo | 2:05 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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

Not suprised. | 3:40 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Matilda | 4:50 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Let's vote on it in November too | 5:45 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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 Great has spoken | 5:53 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

The Co-Chair is a Democrat | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Suggestions to Legislature | 6:05 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Dumb and Dumber | 9:17 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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

Commoner | 10:35 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 5:40 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

"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.

Anonymous | 5:46 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Ethics charges should be brought up against all voucher supporters.

Lawrence | 6:26 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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.

No verdict | 7:09 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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.

Insider Info | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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.

Anonymous | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Riesen is a hero.

Oh Please | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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....

Clean House | 10:23 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I mean the WHOLE house legislators. Watch and listen voters, if you don't like the results or what some say or do VOTE them out. After all they are NOTHING more than your representation. Keep them honest PLEASE.

Surprise! It is October afterall | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Arguments that endorse private ethics hearings based on the notion of protecting the accused are absurd. Why do you think that Greg Hughes is demanding that these hearings are immediately realized? His name is damaged already. Unfortunately ï¿½innocent until proven guiltyï¿½ does not exist in a setting like this.

Donï¿½t get me wrong I am not a huge Greg Hughes supporter but the system (including private hearings) is broken. Why else do you think that after 2 years these allegations were ï¿½leakedï¿½ right before the election? Likely it wonï¿½t matter what the outcome is because of the timing. Why else was it leaked right before the election instead of 2 years ago when it happened?

The most essential aspect of ethics in government is accountability. Accountability demands transparency. Transparency cannot exist under the guise of secret hearings and legislators' disdain for unethical actions.

This whole situation is politically motivated begining for Hughes's discussion to Reisen's media leak. In the meanwhile our legislators engage in their politics assuming that the people wonï¿½t do anything about it. We as the people of Utah need to demand ethical reform starting with full accountability and full transparency.

Cats | 11:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

To Anonymous 5:46, What an UNBELIEVABLY ignorant remark.

Post E'm | 11:16 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Put up the comments D-News, quit being selective.

South Utah County | 11:26 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

REF:Rep Hughes

All I can say pal is woe is you.....Please file this reminder under your Would of.... Should of... and Could of..... joint opportunities missed files. Think of the wasted money you could have saved if only you had not tried to buy a vote or encourage MS. Lawerence to neglect her sworn responsibility to actively pursue the best interests of the people who elected her............and Ms. Lawerence what are you quavering over....standing up and calling a spade a spade????

Heather | 11:42 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

These are our elected officials. It is our responsiblity to be educated on them and the issues that face us. The concern with this situation is that when a meeting is being held behind closed doors that we are being denied access to information we need to make an informed descision.

I understand the intial hearing was to determine if their was any reason to investigate further. I am guessing to avoid dirty politics at an election time. Now that further investigations are warranted shouldn't we have access to this information? If we are to make an educated judgement when we cast our ballots shouldn't these hearings be available to us so that we can judge for ourselves? How is a ruling or sentencing to be impartial when those on the committee may have personal stake in the outcome? Would opening this to the public add an extra measure of accountablity for those participating in the process? Or maybe another group should be conducting this hearing?
Ethics Reform!

I am Proud | 11:42 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

To see some good post
Honest people wanting JUSTICE
What we are looking at is Government gone wrong

Change
Not in Utah
The PEOPLE will re elect Buttar's

2 Rat Packs | 2:01 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

1 performing their "Live at the Sands" act at Kingsbury Hall and another investigating itself on Capitol Hill.

Our legislature is constantly hiding corruption. Every meaningful bill on ethics reform has been killed in committee so no one had to have a recorded vote on the issue.

The fact that this hearing is closed and everyone but Hughes and his attorney's are sworn to secrecy says to the voters that Hughes and his good ole boys network will find him innocent.

Voters again will be treated like mushrooms and kept in the dark and fed manure.

Reason | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

This story appeared on the front page of the printed version, along with a very large picture of Hughes. Its prominent placement contributes to the on-going appearance that the political editor is attempting to target conservative legislators.

Calm Head | 3:44 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Just a note to clear up some issues. 1st This is an 8 person committee 4 democrats and 4 republicans. 2nd the hearing could have been open if 2/3 of committee did not vote to close it. So let the truth shine especially those that have decided guilt or non-guilt without the facts. I guess throwing stones is your game. Peoples reputations are impuned here and should not be judged without facts after all this is still the USA.

Under suspension of the rules... | 5:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I've been an observer of many meetings on capital hill, both committee meetings and floor proceedings. I often hear a legislator say, "Under suspension of the rules..." and then they go ahead and do something that's against the rules, but as long as it's okay with everybody, they go ahead and do it.

This committee had the authority to suspend the rules and make the proceedings open to the public. I, for one, would like to know what kind of questions the witnesses are being asked.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.