November 17, 2005

Ethics Panel Passes Something

Yesterday the General Assembly's special ethics panel put forth a proposal which will eventually be introduced before the whole legislative body.

Democrat lawmakers are patting themselves on the backs today, but was anything really accomplished? All that I've been able to see so far is a patchwork of items full of loopholes.

A few items may sound good on the surface, but if you read the fine print, you find that there's more than meets the eye.

There is a provision to subject the General Assembly to the state's open meetings laws. Sounds good, right? It's definitely something that needs to happen. However, the exception is that it will only apply to a group of lawmakers when there's enough present for a quorum. As Matthew White said, "Never do they have a quorum call in a room at the Sheraton." Exactly. This really changes nothing. I'd say that is big enough of a loophole that even Phil Fulmer could prance through.

Also included in the bill will be the potential to create an "independent" ethics commission to investigate lawmakers. I feel that the word "independent" is a tad misleading here. Two members would be picked by the speaker of the house, two by the speaker of the senate, two by the governor, and three by a joint list from the caucuses. I, personally, wouldn't consider an ethics commission independent whose members are appointed by lawmakers. In fact, that's about as independent as the state's former Tax Study Commission which was stacked by pro-income tax legislators to recommend a state income tax.

What else are they patting themselves on the backs for? A measure that would require legislators to disclose meals for paid by lobbyists or their employees...but only for meals exceeding $50. (Does that include gratuity?) The panel scrapped a proposal that would ban all meals from lobbyists. I suppose a lawmaker's gotta eat.

Another nice loophole was one that would ban "legislators from taking money from firms to perform consultant work and from pushing their interests before state boards, commissions and agencies — except for lawmakers who do that in their role as an attorney." Can anyone say, co-chairwoman of the ethics panel and House Majority Leader (Democrat) Kim McMillan?

What is really disappointing about this entire ethics panel fiasco were the proposals that were scrapped...mostly along party lines. They included recording of subcommittee meetings (another one I was really hoping for), putting votes online, and placing lawmakers' travel costs online...just to name a few.

From Trent Seibert's article in the Tennessean:

"Every time we came up with a proposal that dealt with opening up government, showing the people where money came from and where it would go, making access to their government easier by using the Internet, it was defeated, basically, on party lines," said House Minority Leader Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, who also served on the committee.

He said he would try to make changes when the bill comes before the full House. Gov. Phil Bredesen has said he probably will call a special session in January.

What is really going to change with the proposals put forth by this panel? To me, it looks like it's just going to be business as usual...just with an extra puff of smoke and a couple of mirrors.

I think the only way we can make any change is to start at the ballot box.

More: From Bob Krumm and Matthew White.

More II: Moore...Nathan Moore.

Plus, from the Knoxville News Sentinel comes this nice little tidbit regarding the open meetings provision (emphasis mine):

The language, however, is not as tight as open government advocates wished and is somewhat confusing, said Frank Gibson, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition on Open Government. It also will expire at the end of the 2006 legislative session.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.