Citizen legislators juggle conflicts

BOISE – Jeff Siddoway sells hunting trips for “monster elk” on his private eastern Idaho ranch. He’s also a Republican state senator.

So when Siddoway helped kill a bill to outlaw “shooter-bull” operations – there are 17 in Idaho, including his – his e-mail box bulged with messages telling him he should have abstained.

Democrats argued that not stepping aside gave the appearance of being “on the take” – even though Siddoway consulted the attorney general’s office and followed Idaho Senate rules requiring that he first disclose his personal interest before weighing in.

“It was just so black and white,” according to Siddoway, who represents a sprawling district that stretches from the Continental Divide to the remote lava fields of eastern Idaho. “It was the right thing to do.”

Two months into 2007, lawmakers from Alaska to Virginia have wrestled with similar conflict-of-interesy issues, highlighting a tension that has been at the heart of citizen legislatures since their founding: Members leave real-world jobs to serve part time in America’s state capitols, often bringing them into close quarters with issues they hold dear.

“Having a conflict of interest is not a bad thing. It’s to be expected in a citizen legislature, where people come to the capital for a while, then return to their jobs,” said Peggy Kerns, who directs the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. “It’s what somebody does with that conflict that’s the issue.”

In 64 of 99 state legislative chambers, lawmakers must abstain from voting in certain situations, according to Kern. In 21 others, legislators must vote, but have the option of asking fellow lawmakers to let them abstain.

Oregon lawmakers always vote but must disclose conflicts first.

Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana and Utah allow lawmakers to vote after disclosing their conflicts.

Meanwhile, Maine legislators have “an affirmative duty” to abstain.

In Virginia last week, a lawmaker on an energy company’s board who owns more than $250,000 in stock abstained on a deregulation bill. In North Carolina, where former House Speaker Jim Black faces prison time after pocketing thousands from donors, skittish legislators are boning up on new ethics laws that highlight potential conflicts.

And in Wyoming last week, three lawmakers who own rental apartments abstained on a bill requiring property owners to clean up methamphetamine labs – or risk reimbursing the state.

“The three of us together own some very marginal property,” said Sen. Jayne Mockler, a Democrat from Cheyenne. “We have a lot of tenants in there, and they’re constantly turning over. We don’t know what people do in there.”

Some states, such as California in 1966, have switched to a full-time legislature, in part because they thought professional lawmakers could better separate themselves from conflicts.

Still, most others are unwilling to follow suit.

“Some of our best members have jobs that require them to be there on Mondays and then back on the job Thursday afternoon and Friday,” said Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, a Democrat. “And I’m glad they’re able to do that.”

Having a conflict is one thing, said Mike O’Connell, Washington State Legislative Ethics Board counsel. But it’s also necessary to decide whether the class of people to which a lawmaker belongs that would be affected by the bill is small enough to raise an ethical hurdle.

For instance, a teacher in the Legislature would likely have few qualms voting on an education bill, but measures where the lawmaker is one of fewer than two dozen beneficiaries would likely prompt ethics-board intervention, O’Connell said.

Founders of citizen legislatures encouraged this dynamic interplay between voting and conflict of interest, O’Connell said.

“They wanted people to come here, then go back to their districts and get beat on,” O’Connell said. “They didn’t want them hiding out here all the time. They don’t want professional politicians.”

Unlike Washington, however, Idaho doesn’t have an ethics board to review close calls.

That’s one reason Washington gets the highest rating for conflict-of-interest disclosure from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity; Idaho, by contrast, is ranked last of all 50 states, according to the group.

Some Idaho Democratic leaders say Siddoway crossed the line.

“People don’t have a good feeling about politicians anyway,” said House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum. “When they see politicians voting their own self-interest, that brings down the reputation of all elected officials. The perception is, we’re all on the take.”

Senate GOP leaders bristle at such talk.

The Senate’s rules require that two-thirds of the chamber must agree to a member’s request to be excused.

“That tells me our predecessors in this body had a bigger concern about not voting,” President Pro Tem Robert Geddes said.

Lawmakers have been excused when setting salaries of spouses who are judges, among other things, Geddes said.

“You have to make a pretty good case that you shouldn’t be voting.”

After Siddoway helped kill the bill to ban shooter-bull hunts on elk farms, he later sought and received permission to abstain from voting on a separate bill to regulate elk ranches.

The controversy finally became a distraction, and the 24-9 passage of the measure wasn’t close enough for his vote to have made a difference, Siddoway said.

“I don’t want this to be about me,” he said. “I want it to be about the elk.”