Keeping House

by Representative Kraig Powell

December 28, 2009

The Utah Legislature does not hold Interim Committee meetings during the month of December, but as legislators we did meet in party caucuses this month to discuss important issues surrounding the annual legislative session, which begins January 25 and runs through March 11.

The most pressing concern has been the state budget. Because tax revenues for 2010-2011 have dropped 26 percent from 2008 levels, all areas of state government are facing dramatic cuts. Last month in this column, I asked citizens to weigh in with their opinions on whether taxes should be raised or services should be cut to deal with the shortfall.

The majority of people who have responded said that because individuals are being forced to adjust their lifestyles and spending habits during this recession, government should have to tighten its belt, too. These people typically felt that an economic downturn is not the time to raise taxes.

Other people contacted me to say that they would be willing to pay more in taxes if they knew the money would go to preserve services like education or assistance for the elderly and disabled.

Governor Gary Herbert has recently released his proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins in July. I am impressed with the flexibility and creativity the governor has shown in formulating this plan. His budget will avoid any tax increases, while keeping expenditures for education and social services at roughly their current levels.

Governor Herbert proposes to accomplish this by using a combination of rainy day funds and additional bonding for transportation projects. I believe that the governor’s budget proposal wisely stays in the middle of the road, not cutting programs too much, but also not imposing additional tax burdens. I will be surprised if the Legislature can improve very much on his proposal, which I am strongly inclined to support.

The other topic that has caused much debate at the Utah Capitol lately is legislative ethics reform. Many people have asked me to elaborate on my views of the citizens’ ethics initiative and other proposed reform measures. I thank those people who have contacted me with their input on this subject.

I believe there are several changes needed in the conduct of legislators and legislative candidates in Utah. I support most of the provisions contained in the proposed citizens’ ethics initiative. To be specific, I would like to list several of the initiative’s provisions and indicate whether I support or oppose each of them. Here are some of the provisions that I support:

• Ban on all gifts and meals from lobbyists.
• Ban on sitting legislators being employed by or as a lobbyist.
• Ban on becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving legislative office.
• Ban on accepting campaign contributions in return for legislative action.
• Ban on soliciting contributions from a lobbyist.
• Ban on giving any money to, or accepting any money from, another legislator or legislative candidate.
• Ban on campaign contributions from corporations.
• Limit of $2,500 on contributions from an individual.
• Limit of $5,000 on contributions from a political action committee.
• Ban on personal use of campaign contributions.
• Requirement to donate remaining campaign funds to charity five years after leaving office.
• Requirement that all legislators complete an annual ethics training course.
• Ban on legislators contacting public officials to discourage prosecution of a crime.
• Ban on legislators making threats of retribution for disobeying the legislator.
• Selection of independent ethics commission members by drawing five names out of a hat containing twenty names.

Here are some of the provisions in the initiative that I oppose:

• Ban on legislators taking any legislative action for a “personal interest,” where “personal interest” is defined as “partisan political benefit.” I believe this would prohibit lawmakers from passing legislation that is supported by their constituents, because doing so could help the lawmakers get re-elected.
• Ban on legislators using government facilities or employees in furtherance of a “personal interest.” Again, this would prohibit many activities that citizens desire their representatives to perform.
• Ban on legislators “unduly influencing the outcome of any matter to be decided by a public body or public official.” Constituents often ask their legislator to contact a state agency to help them with a pending matter. This provision would hinder such assistance.
• Requirement to annually disclose all siblings, nephews, nieces and first cousins of the legislator who hold or seek any contracts with a public body or who receive any compensation from any lobbyist. Many legislators do not even know all their cousins, nieces and nephews, let alone how those people are employed.
• Requirement that Republican and Democratic legislative leaders unanimously select the twenty names of potential commission members to place in the hat. The possibility of deadlock is too great. Instead, I would allow the majority party to choose twelve names and the minority party to choose eight names.

I am currently drafting a bill that enacts the many ethics provisions that I support. This is a subject on which I believe the voters want to see substantial, yet reasonable, changes.

My next column in mid-January will preview several important bills for the upcoming legislative session, including bills that I am working on.

As always, you may contact me to discuss any matters you wish by email at kraigpowell [at] utah.gov or by phone at 435-654-1550.