Solving Virginia’s ethical dilemma

In August, an investigation by Virginian-Pilot reporters Bill Sizemore and Julian Walker uncovered e-mails showing that Del. Phil Hamilton lobbied Old Dominion University officials for a job at a new teacher training center before he filed a budget amendment for the project.

Earlier this month, the reporters revealed Sen. Tommy Norment’s job as a legal adviser to the College of William and Mary has exacerbated friction between the college and the attorney general’s office.

This week, Sizemore and Walker examined eight lawmakers who collect paychecks from state universities that range from $160,00 to $2,000.

With each story, the gray areas have gotten grayer, and questions about how to avoid future conflicts of interest have gotten harder to answer.

Should lawmakers be prohibited from accepting jobs at state institutions? Should those who held state jobs before their election be exempted? If they are exempted, would they be restricted from getting a promotion? Should public school teachers have similar rules? Should legislators’ spouses be covered by any restrictions? What about adult children? Should a nominal fee for teaching one college class be treated the same as a six-figure salary? Should legislators who own businesses be allowed to have contracts with state agencies? What rules should apply in all of those cases when legislators vote on bills and budgets that affect their livelihoods?

Conflict-of-interest laws cannot be so strict that they disqualify half the state’s population from public service.  In a state with a part-time legislature, ethics laws must be instilled with a certain level of practicality. But that doesn’t mean the laws should be loose.

Finding the right balance requires full-time vigilance and a commitment to transparency. With public confidence in state leaders shaken  in Virginia, legislators should consider joining the 40 states that have ethics commissions.

An effective ethics commission is dependent on strong conflict-of-interest laws, adequate enforcement authority and an independent membership.  Opponents of reform insist existing disclosure requirements are the best way to ensure good behavior, but state laws don’t even require legislators to reveal income from state and local government agencies. Closing that loophole is a first step toward better laws.

 A state ethics commission also should have the power to effectively police those laws, including the ability to initiate an investigation without an outside complaint, to subpoena documents and witnesses, to audit lawmakers’ financial reports and to impose meaningful fines for infractions.

Finally, at least a majority of commission members should be nominated by officials outside the legislature, such as the attorney general, the state auditor or a panel of judges.

No current or former legislator should be permitted as a member. Political party activists, major campaign contributors and lobbyists also should be excluded. The panel now charged with investigating the complaint against Hamilton includes a lobbyist who most recently represented utility giant Dominion. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, his presence is sure to raise questions that could have been avoided.

The effectiveness of  ethics commissions in other states varies, and most are admittedly mediocre. Those that demonstrate independence and moxie are invariably watered down by self-serving legislatures. While imperfect, those commissions offer a blueprint for real  reform, if Virginia lawmakers are willing to embrace it.