State urged to restrict ‘revolving door’

BOISE – Three times in the last three months, key state employees have left their jobs for new ones at companies they previously oversaw.

That’s perfectly legal – Idaho is one of 23 states with no law to prevent such “revolving door” moves. But some say it may be time for the state to look at how other states regulate such moves.

“When you’re hired by the public, you’re there to work for the public interest and not just use it to set things up so that you can benefit personally,” said Sen. Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow, who is planning to introduce legislation on the issue next year. “That’s what it looks like to the public, whether it’s happened or not.”

In late May, the state Board of Education’s chief academic officer, Randy Thompson, left his job to lead marketing efforts to state governments for the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. Thompson had played a key role, on behalf of the board, in lobbying for Idaho to approve the firm’s controversial new computer test as an alternate way to certify teachers. The test substitutes for more traditional training. Now, he’ll work for the firm that sells the test.

The same day, Scott Turlington, a senior policy adviser to Gov. Dirk Kempthorne who had advised the governor on a long-term state land lease for a major new ski resort, went to work for the resort. Turlington is now Tamarack Resort’s liaison to the Legislature and other government agencies.

Then, last week, Janet Aikele, director of Idaho’s largest public charter school, the computer-based Idaho Virtual Academy, announced she was leaving to work for K12, the for-profit company that provides the academy’s curriculum. Aikele, a former state legislator, signed the academy’s multimillion-dollar contract with K12, and lobbied legislators this year to give the school millions more in taxpayer funds to pay K12.

“These three moves raise questions that should be explored, without suggesting any impropriety whatsoever,” said Jim Weatherby, Boise State University political scientist and a longtime observer of state politics. “The lines between public and private have blurred so much over the years, that it’s perhaps time to consider a cooling-off period or some kind of limitations, and slowing down the revolving door.”

That’s what 27 states do, including Washington, according to Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“Occasionally, not too often, but occasionally there will be situations that really don’t smell right, when somebody jumps ship,” Kerns said. “So having six months, a year, sometimes two years clears the air. … Where things get muddy and cloudy is when people jump ship right away. It’s not to say that favors have been given. It’s how it looks to the public.”

In Washington, state officials, including legislators, are banned for one year from accepting employment or receiving pay if, during their last two years with the state, they participated in any transaction with the firm, including negotiating a contract. The ban doesn’t apply to volunteer work.

In Montana, state law prohibits public officers from taking jobs within a year after leaving office in which they’ll take advantage of matters they were directly involved with in their public-sector work.

“The fact that the majority of the states have restrictive provisions tells something,” Kerns said. “I just think that one of the primary responsibilities of public servants is to operate with the highest ethical standards possible, and therefore not to contribute to the public skepticism towards government. I sometimes think that being able to jump sides quickly like that may cause some of the public to roll their eyes and say, ‘What’s going on here?’ “

Kempthorne sees another side to the issue. “First and foremost, this is an indication of how difficult it is to hold on to good people in state government, and to compete with the private sector,” said his press secretary, Mike Journee. “Those are examples of folks who had highly developed skills in areas dealing with those companies’ spheres. That was the reason that they left. … It wasn’t anything more than that.”

He added, “The governor doesn’t feel there’s a need for a waiting period,” though he said Kempthorne would consider legislation if lawmakers supported it.

Gary Stivers, executive director of the state Board of Education, had similar concerns.

“The main way people get their jobs is through networking,” he said. “It’s through the people that they know, people that are aware of their skills and abilities, what they’ve been able to accomplish.”

“I do have a concern about being able to recruit good people, and not putting up barriers that would result in good people not wanting to work for the state because of the restrictions,” he said.

Most state revolving-door laws apply to state legislators as well as other officials, and prevent them from lobbying the Legislature immediately after they leave office – a practice that’s common in Idaho.

Just in the past two years, for example, former North Idaho lawmakers Kris Ellis and Don Pischner reappeared in the state Capitol as lobbyists, immediately after losing their legislative seats. In fact, many, if not most, of Idaho’s best-known lobbyists are former state legislators.

“I like both of them,” Schroeder said of Ellis and Pischner. “But at some point you have to protect the public’s interest, it’s that simple.”

Turlington said there were several factors that played into his decision to leave the governor’s office after four years and sign on with Tamarack. One was the simple fact that jobs tied to elected officials end when administrations change. “I knew at some point that I’m going to have to go out and find a different job, because he’s not going to be governor, there’s going to be another governor,” Turlington said. “It’s nice to know you have some opportunities to get some stability.”

Turlington said his job search yielded three offers, including one outside Idaho, and he opted for Tamarack as the best of the three. That was partly because he’d become familiar with the resort project in his work, he said. “I think there was great opportunity for Tamarack to succeed. I believe this is a solid company.”

In any job, he said, “You’re going to have interaction with people that recognize your talents and abilities. It makes sense that there are opportunities.”

A cooling-off period “doesn’t make sense to me,” he said. “If I were to have to wait a year to go out and get a job with someone that I’d had some contact with, what am I going to do for that year? It seems to be awfully limiting to me, and I don’t know that it’s necessary in Idaho.”

Thompson said he’d have no objection to a cooling-off period if the Legislature thought it was appropriate. “It’s important that we have clear laws and that we abide by them,” he said.

He said he was drawn to his new job with the testing firm because, “I’m very committed to the idea of this project, and I thought there was the opportunity to work at the national level.”

He noted that the state Board of Education voted to have Idaho join the testing program. “I wasn’t the decision-maker on this – I had no vote in the matter,” he said. “I was a staff member working for the board, and simply providing the board with analysis from which they made their own decision.”

Any state laws, he said, should provide “a balance between personal opportunities and personal growth, and protecting the ethical interests of the state.”

Schroeder said the state likely can’t prevent people from going to work for private firms, but could limit their ability to then do business with the agency they just left. “All of a sudden, there’s three – boom, boom, boom,” he said. “Maybe this is the time.”

Weatherby said revolving-door restrictions may or may not be needed in Idaho, with its small population and part-time Legislature. “But I would certainly welcome the debate and discussion over it,” he said. “It raises a question that I think should be investigated in terms of whose interests are being served, and whether or not public employees have the kind of independence we expect them to have in representing the public interest.”