Why should the public trust lawmakers who design and operate such a self-protecting system?
Another astounding aspect of Virginia's conflict of interest law gives lawmakers a legal break nobody else gets.
In other words, lawmakers have made ignorance of the law a sufficient defense if they break the law. Those who write the law are the last people who should be able to claim ignorance of it. Citizens are shortchanged by all this secrecy. And they don't like it.
The conflict of interest case involving Del. Phil Hamilton
and Old Dominion University has had one very public result — Hamilton's defeat at the polls last week. But almost everything else about it remains secret. Unfortunately, that's just the way the Virginia General Assembly likes it when it comes to ethical questions about legislators.Having drawn statewide attention because it helped unseat a powerful lawmaker, the Hamilton case presents an opportunity to fix that.When voters in the 93rd District decided that Hamilton wouldn't represent them in Richmond any more, they acted on incomplete information. That's because Virginia shuts citizens out of the process. Instead, it shields legislators. Voters knew from news disclosures that an e-mail trail shows Hamilton asking for a $40,000 job at a new teacher training center at ODU before and at the same time as he was seeking General Assembly funding to create it. And they knew from news reports that the House was investigating, as was a federal grand jury. But they didn't have clear information about what ODU was expecting and the terms of its understanding with Hamilton. They weren't allowed to listen as ODU officials and legislators involved in the budget process talked with the House Ethics Advisory Panel. Its meetings are so secret, it won't even admit when it's meeting.Unless and until the investigating panel decides that a violation took place, its proceedings remain secret — unless the scrutinized lawmaker requests that the hearings be open (and even that doesn't force the entire investigation into the open). The whole process — hearings, records, reports — should be public. If there has been no violation, a legislator should have nothing to fear. If there has been, the public has a right to know. Who's guarding the henhouse is also a problem. Ethics panels are appointed by the leaders of the foxes — a committee in the Senate, the speaker in the House. The deck is further stacked by the law's requirement that some members be former legislators/foxes. The choosers can pick whom they want, and the current speaker tapped several people widely recognized for their partisan activities.
A better approach would create nonpartisan panels made up of citizens, since the point of the law, and its application, should be to protect citizens. Another astounding aspect of Virginia's conflict of interest law gives lawmakers a legal break nobody else gets.
The ethics panel may recommend legal action if and only if it finds that the violation was knowing. An unknowing violation goes to another committee, which has the option of recommending that the member be disciplined in-house, not charged with a crime. In other words, lawmakers have made ignorance of the law a sufficient defense if they break the law. Those who write the law are the last people who should be able to claim ignorance of it. Citizens are shortchanged by all this secrecy. And they don't like it. In a recent poll conducted by the Judy Ford Wason Public Policy Center at Christopher Newport University, 83 percent said the House investigative panel's work should be open.They're right. Because what's at stake is public trust. Why should the public trust lawmakers who design and operate such a self-protecting system? The best outcome of the Hamilton affair would be a rework of the General Assembly's approach to conflicts of interest. It should aim for a fair, open process, one that inspires trust in the people citizens rely on to write — and respect — the laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment