ETHICS LEGISLATION DECISIONS

At the conclusion of yesterday’s State Affairs Committee meeting, I appointed a State Affairs Sub-Committee to review the provisions of HB10, HB20, and the other ethics bills and to make recommendations on what portions of those bills should be combined into Governor Sarah Palin’s forthcoming ethics bill proposal. I named Representative John Coghill as Chair of the sub-committee, with Representatives Bob Roses, and Max Gruenberg as members. The sub-committee is to be open to any other House member who wishes to participate, as well as to the public.

Some House colleagues, mostly from the minority, would prefer presenting a series of bills, each bill addressing a particular ethics concern. They believe one large omnibus bill would be more difficult to shepherd successfully through the legislative process. There is some validity to that concern. The same colleagues also felt that waiting for a bill from the governor would unnecessarily delay getting any kind of bill through. I expressed my belief that the governor would submit a bill to the legislature before the end of the week, or Monday at the latest.

As Committee Chair, I opted for a single omnibus ethics bill, with the governor’s bill as the vehicle. In the balance, I believe that's the more pragmatic approach. Someone had to make a decision, and I did.

First of all, an omnibus bill removes the names of individual sponsors and takes away personal legislator’s “pride of authorship” factors that could make necessary compromises more difficult and, at the same time, doesn’t create a direct Republican or Democratic bill. I think a single piece of legislation can better mesh the various provisions of an ethics bill, and lessen the possibility of unintended consequences. I also think there’s a higher probability of success with one bill. A governor’s bill typically has more “horsepower” than a bill from an individual legislator, groups of legislators, or a committee bill.