The Davis legislators we talked to complained that the initiative could ruin the reputation of a legislator due to unfounded complaints, forcing them to publicly defend themselves against spurious charges. They complained that legislators would be seen as guilty until proven innocent and also worried that legislators could be bankrupted because they could not use the Legislature’s attorneys in their defense. They even fretted that people in a “control” position would not be allowed to serve in the Legislature, meaning that any supervisor of anything could not be elected.
This issue is a rather unique situation in Utah politics because it pits Davis County Republican proponents and opponents against each other.
The proposal’s chief exponent is Bountiful’s Kim Burningham, aided by well-known Bountiful attorney David Irvine.
As we talked with Republican legislators who felt great concern over the initiative, everything they said made sense. So we asked Burningham to address the stumbling blocks felt by the GOP.
What Burningham told us was compelling. He not only evaporated every key “shortcoming,” he also drove a stake into the heart of the key problem that has bedeviled the Legislature – and therefore the public’s ethical perception of them – for decades. Essentially, Burningham wants to severely cripple the influence of lobbyists and powerful, well-heeled corporations while basing financial support more squarely upon the voters. In essence, he said that by having campaign war chests pared down and funded by a wide range of individuals, the Legislators’ allegiance will be squarely to the voters — which is were it should be.
We also concur with and support Burningham’s initiative for the following reasons:
1. The initiative follows major unseemly corruption scandals in recent years, indicating that change is needed.
2. Burningham’s proposal does not put legislators in danger of politically motivated, spurious charges because they must first be investigated privately by a mutually agreed-upon committee, which screens them in private. Only when the committee finds sufficient and justified cause to pursue an ethics probe does the investigation go forward.
3. The committee levels no charges but only passes the complaints to the full Legislature which must conduct the probe openly, as all trials are handled in the U.S. today. No backroom dealings. And no legislator has to be the whistle-blower against his or her friends.
4. While an accused legislator must then prove his or her innocence, Burningham says this is already the norm for business cases and in situations involving a fiduciary or public trust.
5. Legislators won’t have to bear the expense to defend themselves because reasonable legal fees will be paid by the state. The only difference is that the Legislature’s legal counsel will not be forced into a conflict of interest by representing both the Legislature and the accused individual.
6. And fears that anyone in a supervisory position will automatically be ineligible to serve in the Legislature are groundless. The restriction against legislators in a “control” position is aimed at stopping a company from using one of its employees as a private legislator for them, or for appointing legislators to boards or other positions just to get legislators on their side. We believe few Utahns would even want a legislator to be beholden to companies they represent.
Finally, Burningham notes that newly passed laws routinely have small flaws that are fixed via later amendments by the Legislature. His initiative would be no different, If there are any points that prove burdensome or unworkable in the initiative, it becomes just like any other law. That is, the Legislature has full rights to amend or correct any shortcomings – with the protection being that it must justify the corrections to the constituents that voted for the initiative in the first place.
All in all, Burningham seems to make sense. Even if he’s wrong on some points, the Legislature can fix it. The Legislature can even preempt the initiative entirely by passing its own comprehensive ethics reform first. If it sufficiently accomplishes the objectives championed by Burningham, he would be more than happy to drop his initiative.
This means the ball, as they say, is in the legislature’s court. Either it or the people will be able to decide the ethics direction of this state. Burningham has thrown down the gauntlet – and the challenge is clear.
Post a Comment
