Frankly, it doesn’t pass the smell test. And it pits Davis County people against one another.

What I’m talking about is the recent effort by the Utah Legislature to enshrine its own version of ethics reform, thumbing its collective nose at the effort of Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG).

The UEG is the brainchild of two Bountiful residents, Kim Burningham and David Irvine.

Burningham is a member of the Utah Board of Education and Irvine is a local attorney.

Their vision is to make substantive changes in ethics rules in Utah. But state and county GOP officials have lined up unitedly against them — and this includes many Republican elected officials as well as rank-and-file party members.

Both the GOP and the UEG agree that ethics laws need more teeth. And plans sponsored by both groups offer some very cogent points.

But, as they say, the Devil is in the details, and sometimes the finer points can be downright hellish.

I’ve always viewed Davis County elected officials as a generally level-headed bunch and not overboard in their political leanings. Most of the weird bills passed by the Utah Legislature seem to come from Salt Lake and Utah counties, assisted by a smattering of other areas across the state.

That’s why the brother-vs-brother battle over ethics reform troubles me. And here’s why:

1. The effort to “permanently enshrine” ethics reforms via an amendment to the Utah Constitution seems like overkill. A bill passed into law would do just fine. While it sounds grand to say we care about ethics so much that we want it cast in stone forever, there is also a dark side.

Making this a constitutional amendment doesn’t enshrine “ethics” as much as it locks in the current form of ethics that today’s legislators desire.

Which means it could hamper future attempts at additional ethics reform and — worse yet — it may keep pesky ethics initiatives such as those touted by the UEG from ever having a chance. In short, it sounds to me like, “This is the brand of ethics ‘reform’ we want, and we don’t want the public to ever get the chance to change it.”

2. The urgent rush to pass SB 275 in the face of the “Fair Boundaries” redistricting initiative and UEG’s ethics reform initiative seems too politically convenient

It essentially makes it far easier for those who don’t want the public to vote on these initiatives to get petition signers to recant. In fact, it leaves it wide open for opponents to actively track down and pressure signers to change their minds — stacking the deck against giving the public a vote in all future initiatives.

3. There are many needed ethics reforms left out of the proposed ethics amendment, which further signals that the real purpose might be to limit reforms, not enhance them, while permanently keeping the pesky public at bay.

As with all things — including Pres. Obama’s health care legislation — time will reveal whether our worries are justified.

I only hope that in both the federal and state cases the real motives will turn out to be a concern for the welfare of the public. But the jury may be out for some time.