A bill that provides more transparency, clear standards and a public complaint process will fix major shortcomings in state ethics rules. These are needed changes, and lawmakers should support LD 1008.

Following the recommendations of a legislative advisory committee on ethics, the bill’s lead sponsors, Senate President Beth Edmonds and House Speaker Glenn Cummings, clarify and strengthen the conflict of interest definition in LD 1008. The advisory committee rightly decided that the current language requiring lawmakers to recuse themselves from legislative action only when they would enjoy a “unique and distinct” benefit is too narrow. Under LD 1008, a conflict arises when legislation would benefit or harm a lawmaker, an immediate family member or economic associate, which includes employers, “to a degree that is significantly greater than similarly situated persons or entities.” This appropriately will result in more recusals.

The bill, which is scheduled for a work session today before the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, could be improved with better statutory guidance to help identify inappropriate committee assignments.

In 2005, the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices faced concerns that Rep. Thomas Saviello, the environmental manager of the International Paper mill in Jay and then a member of the Natural Resources Committee, violated legislative ethics rules by voting on and developing policies that affected his employer. The commission received requests for an investigation from Rep. Saviello and the Conservation Law Foundation. After a closed-door meeting, the commission allowed Rep. Saviello to withdraw his request and later voted 2-2 to not pursue the CLF complaint. Two commission members said they felt they did not have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint from an entity other than a lawmaker, despite assurances from the Attorney General’s Office that it could.

This left the public with no place to go when they believe a lawmaker has acted improperly.

LD 1008 would rectify this by allowing the public to file complaints against sitting lawmakers. The statute now refers to legislators filing complaints. To address concerns that complaints may be filed to harass lawmakers, the bill offers legislators protection from frivolous and “bad faith” complaints.

The bill also requires that the Ethics Commission proceedings be conducted in public once the commission decides a complaint should be investigated. It goes further than the advisory committee’s suggestions in fixing another problem that arose during the Saviello case, which was the absence of the commission’s fifth, tie-breaking member because lawmakers had been unable to agree on who should fill this seat. The bill would require only two votes in favor of an investigation if the commission was missing its fifth member.

This bill would strengthen conflict-of-interest standards and increase the transparency of the state’s ethics commission. Lawmakers should support these needed improvements.