Hamilton probe should continue

Public trust in Virginia's elected leaders has worn dangerously thin this year thanks to the shenanigans of Phil Hamilton. He resigned his position in the House of Delegates on Sunday, a decision that leaves his Newport News constituents without representation until his successor takes office in January.

In August, House Speaker Bill Howell asked a state ethics panel to investigate whether Hamilton improperly lobbied Old Dominion University for a job before he used his position as a state legislator and senior budget negotiator to secure funding for a teacher training center.

Hamilton's actions came to light in a series of stories by The Virginian-Pilot's Bill Sizemore. On Election Day, voters ended Hamilton's 21-year career in the General Assembly.

If the former delegate is permitted to cut short an investigation simply by saying "I quit," many will conclude that their worst suspicions about Hamilton have been confirmed. More troubling, such an abrupt and unsatisfactory conclusion will feed public cynicism over officials' inability and unwillingness to police their own behavior, or to be held accountable for it.

The ethics panel has been meeting in private for nearly three months, and it was scheduled to conclude its deliberations by late next month. If the panel determines that Hamilton violated state conflict-of-interest laws, it has the power to refer him for punishment either to the House of Delegates or to the Attorney General's Office.

State law is unclear on what happens now that Hamilton has resigned.

One section of the law states that the ethics panel's powers "shall be applied and used only in relation to members of the respective house of the General Assembly."

Some officials interpret that clause as limiting investigations to seated lawmakers. But that declaration is followed by instructions giving the panel authority to review actions by a lawmaker "in his current term or his immediate prior term."

The public has a right to know if the investigatory panel believes Hamilton broke the law.

His resignation does not preclude him from running for his old seat in two years. Even if he never seeks public office again, he could resurface at the state Capitol as a lobbyist as early as 2011. Any questions about his conduct need to be answered now, not shunted aside while he contemplates career plans.

The ethics panel can best fulfill its duties by completing its work and issuing a public report. The legislature can best serve the public good by cleaning up state laws governing ethics investigations to make sure this conundrum is not repeated in the future.

Many legislators probably would prefer never to hear Phil Hamilton's name again. But if they allow one individual to take advantage of a hole in the system, they will all feel the loss of a public trust already worn thin.