Oct 27
Ethics Reform — Different Things To Different People
2008 at 9:43 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 3 comments
“Ethics Reform” appears to mean different things to different people…as indicated by a number of conversations I’ve had with constituents over the past several weeks. Some constituents are concerned about the “back stabbing” often reported in the media, while others believe reform should be limited to “gifting” to elected officials.
Whatever the case, the legislature has made a number of attempts to “tighten” the reigns on definition and disclosure. SB246 (2007 General Session) made more restrictive financial disclosure and reporting requirements for both contributors and elected officials. Link HERE to SB246…sponsored by two Republicans.
Also, interesting to note is that “Ethics Reform,” commonly referred to as a “republican problem,” seems to be a bi-partisan issue according to some news outlets. Link HERE for Deseret News article.
Even Senator Patricia Jones (D-SLC) was reported by the Deseret News to have taken “unreimbursed tickets” to a Billy Joel concert (she later commented in the article that she would pay the full ticket price back to the provider). $388 to see the piano man…are you kidding?! Good thing…Pat Jones put her “John Hancock” on the new ethics reform pledge with several other reformer lawmakers. Click HERE for Deseret News article.
Ultimately the People decide whether their elected officials are living up to their expectations. If your elected official is screwing up…vote the bum out! You’ve got seven days to make up your mind.
Link HERE for Lt. Governor’s Financial Disclosure site. Afterall, you’ll want to make an informed decision…right?!
3 Responses to “Ethics Reform — Different Things To Different People”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
How do constituents know who to vote out without clear ethics rules, and investigations into violations?
Isn’t the lack of either/both assuming that elected officials will simply tell us if they haven’t earned our vote?
Seems an extremely naive assertion to make.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Naive? Targeted is more like it.
I benchmark Legislative behavior on the gleeful gerrymandering of a few years back. Nothing any one said, however outraged, could stop that abomination of legislative function (mirrored by the 4th Congressional seat map that had those little bumps to keep Curtis and Bigelow in the 3rd District) and when the legislator, for the most part, all kept their seats in the next election, it was like a engraved invitation to behave as they want.
About the only thing I agree with here is that there are a few Democrats that should be better towing the spirit of the ethics line as put forth by their caucus members who keep forwarding ethics bills. You know, those bills that are killed in committee because a floor debate would embarrass GOP Leadership.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
When you become a fundamentalist, like members of the Conservative Caucus have, then “ethics” certainly does mean different things to different people and take on a new meaning–by the actions of those members I would have to conclude that what it comes down to most of them is the end justifies the means. Ethics for me is avoiding the appearance of unethical, unbecoming behavior. For others, hard ball politics is the order of the day–until they get caught.