Spokane7
40°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
As the governor’s transportation funding task force opened its meeting this morning, one member, Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, took the opportunity to formally disclose a possible conflict of interest. She both made a statement and submitted a written notice, noting, “My private sector employer is the Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho. My employer may be impacted by the work of this committee. I want to formally and publicly disclose this potential conflict of interest and uphold the state Senate rules and my oath of office.”
Lt. Gov. Brad Little, the task force chairman, responded, “We appreciate that, senator - we appreciate all transparency in the governmental process, and that will be duly noted.” Asked about the conflict disclosure during a break in the task force meeting, Keough said, “I’ve always been up-front about mine and mine are on the record.”
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
TerryHarris on August 31 at 11:11 a.m.
Is simply putting potential conflicts “on the record” enough? Shouldn’t a legislator recuse him or herself from voting when there is a conflict?
slfisher on August 31 at 12:51 p.m.
If every legislator who had a conflict didn’t vote, they wouldn’t be able to get a quorum. We have a small population and a citizen legislature. They (typically) declare it, which is what is required by law. I believe that if Lt. Little had wanted to, he could have recused her.
(This is aside from the fact that I believe Senator Keough to be one of the most reputable people in the Legislature.)
TerryHarris on August 31 at 3:36 p.m.
Typically recusal is done on a vote by vote basis and wouldn’t affect quorum calls. If quorum is in question, then Idaho has a MUCH more serious problem.
I certainly don’t question Sen. Keough’s reputability, but using her as an example, whenever the “Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho” have an interest in a particular piece of legislation, Sen. Keough should simply pass. Indeed, it is for her own protection — so she can avoid undue pressure from her employer, and so she can avoid the appearance of impropriety with her constituents.
If the law says disclosure and disclosure alone is enough, then the law should be changed to require recusal. And as a voter, I’d be keenly interested in why any individual legislator would oppose such a change.