Idaho Democratic Party Chairman Keith Roark says the state's conflict of interest laws need strengthening, citing yesterday's vote-change that killed a tobacco bill, by a senator whose husband is a tobacco lobbyist. The senator, Melinda Smyser, said her vote had nothing to do with her husband's work. "I have my own life," she told the Associated Press. "I would never do anything to jeopardize how I represent my constituents." In more than three dozen other states, legislators who could be personally or financially affected by a bill are required to recuse themselves from voting on it. But President Pro-Tem Bob Geddes says that short-changes the citizens the lawmaker represents. "Even if I personally have a conflict, my district still expects I vote on the issue," he told the AP; click below to read a full report from AP reporter Simmi Aujla, and read Roark's statement here.

Idaho senator's vote raises conflict questions
By SIMMI AUJLA, Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Sen. Elliot Werk thought he'd won.

The Boise Democrat left Monday's Health and Welfare Committee meeting thinking his bill to ban candy-like tobacco products in Idaho had survived a narrow 5-4 decision. Another senator came out of the hearing room and into the glow of the Idaho Capitol's basement skylights to congratulate him.

His victory was short-lived.

"Somebody came out of the room and told me, 'You should get back in there, they just killed your bill,'" Werk told The Associated Press.

Here's what happened: Sen. Melinda Smyser, R-Parma and the wife of a tobacco industry lobbyist, originally voted for Werk's bill to ban dissolvable tobacco. But after everyone else on the nine-member panel had weighed in, she decided the ban would have been "premature," and changed her mind.

Smyser's about-face on a measure that could affect an industry her husband lobbies for is raising questions among some about whether the Legislature's conflict-of-interest rules failed. The Idaho Democratic Party said Wednesday Smyser's vote shows the Legislature needs stronger rules to fight the "unrestrained power" of business groups.

"The people of Idaho are entitled to know that the public's business is managed in the public interest, not to advance special interests," said Democratic Chairman Keith Roark, in a statement.

Idaho Legislature's rules do require senators and representatives disclose a possible conflict of interest before they vote, a provision that's meant to allow citizen legislators to weigh in on a range of issues that may be close to their hearts — or families.

Smyser did that before she voted the first time, for Werk's bill.

But allowing legislators to vote on any bill means they must take extra care to avoid the appearance of impropriety that could undermine voters' faith. The National Conference of State Legislatures says lawmakers should police themselves.

"The very fact of having a conflict of interest is not inherently bad," said Peggy Kerns, director of the group's ethics center. "Where things get bad is how a person responds to the conflict."

Instances where conflicts are elevated to grave concerns in the Idaho Legislature are rare.

In February 2005, then-state Sen. Jack Noble, a Republican, tried unsuccessfully to introduce a measure that would have benefited his convenience store by allowing it to sell alcohol, even though it was close to a school. The Senate Ethics Committee later voted to censure Noble for lying under oath; he quit before the official reprimand.

Smyser's husband, Skip Smyser, lobbies for Altria Group Inc. Altria doesn't currently have dissolvable tobacco products on the market; a company spokesman declined to say if the Richmond, Va.-based maker of Marlboro cigarettes and Skoal smokeless tobacco is developing dissolvable tobacco products similar to its rival R.J. Reynolds.

The bill considered Monday targeted the Reynolds' products, as well as those from another company already selling such lozenges in Idaho.

On Wednesday afternoon, Smyser explained why she changed her vote. She says she grew more skeptical about the bill after hearing testimony from an Idaho Retailers' Association lobbyist who testified banning the product would hurt Idaho stores near state borders that compete with those in other states.

Smyser also thought the Food and Drug Administration should be given a chance to vet the product before the Legislature makes a decision on it.

But when the vote arrived, she was flustered.

"All of a sudden, the vote came really fast. So then I voted," she said. "I didn't even really think about it. Then I decided it was premature."

It had nothing to do with her husband, Smyser said, adding they don't talk about his work for the tobacco industry because they have other things to talk about, like her job at the Caldwell School District, volunteer work, and their four children.

"I have my own life," she said. "I would never do anything to jeopardize how I represent my constituents."

Skip Smyser didn't return phone messages left Wednesday.

In more than three dozen other states, legislators who could be personally or financially affected by a bill are required to recuse themselves.

In Colorado and Delaware, for example, senators don't vote on bills if their spouses are lobbyists who could be working on those bills.

Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, said Idaho's current rules that require disclosure but allow lawmakers to vote make sense because citizen lawmakers who support themselves as attorneys, teachers, businessmen, or ranchers must often consider legislation that could affect them. Lawmakers who recuse themselves because of personal conflicts are letting down constituents, he said.

"Even if I personally have a conflict, my district still expects I vote on the issue," he said.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

---

---