|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
House ethics rule doubtful, lawmakers say Sunday, Oct 14, 2007 By Rob Moritz and John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - As a rule, state representatives have their doubts about requiring House members to disclose gifts from lobbyists but may chew on banning smokeless tobacco from their environs, House leaders say. The two proposed rules changes are among those likely to be considered during a full House caucus Thursday. House Speaker Benny Petrus, D-Stuttgart, called the meeting to consider some minor technical changes to some House rules. Reps. Dan Greenberg, R-Little Rock, and Steve Harrelson, D-Texarkana, have said they plan to propose a rule to require members to file a monthly report disclosing gifts of any amount they receive from lobbyists. Several of their colleagues say any such disclosure should be legislated and should not be limited to just House members. Others also voiced reservations about the proposal but said they'd keep an open mind. "I think that as a rule, it really makes it confusing and unenforceable. There's not really any binding penalty (short of expulsion) as a House rule," said Rep. David Dunn, D-Forrest City, chairman of the House Rules Committee. "So what we need to do, if the members think that ethics is an issue, then we need to do that legislatively and not as a rule," Dunn said. "I think the majority of members feel like it needs to be a law and not a rule, so I think (passage) is a long shot." Rep. Randy Stewart, D-Kirby, said if lawmakers believe such a requirement is necessary, it should apply across the board. "We don't need to pick out one part of the population of elected officials," said Stewart, vice chairman of the House aging and legislative affairs committee. Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said having such a rule would be "creating opportunity for adversaries to play gotcha." "Another part of it for me," he said, "is in the end, no ethics legislation is going to be a substitute for a level of trust between a legislator and his constituents." Greenberg and Harrelson said last week that the proposed ethics rule is similar to legislation Petrus filed during this year's regular legislative session. The measure passed the House but died in a Senate committee. The proposed rule "will bring us a step close to the intent that the House expressed during our legislative session to pass strong ethics rules," Greenberg and Harrelson in a news release announcing their proposal. The House speaker's bill would have required lobbyists to report details to the state when they spend money on lawmakers. Currently, legislators can receive up to $100 in gifts, food or other items a day from an individual lobbyist, and lobbyists are required to report to the state when they spend more than $40 on a legislator in a day. Petrus said last week he has talked with Greenberg about the proposed rule, but has yet to make up his mind. "I am totally in favor of ethics laws. I don't think I favor ethics rules where one body has to adhere to it and no one else in state government does," he said. Rep. John Paul Wells, D-Paris, said he did not like "doing something to hamper the House compared to the Senate." "I really don't think right now it would probably get enough votes to pass," Wells said. Any rule change would require at least 67 votes, and then would have to go before the House Committee for consideration. "There's reason to be optimistic and there's reason to pessimistic" about the proposal, Greenberg said. "Members of the House voted 89-3 for a gift prohibition earlier this year ... that's reason to optimistic," he said. "The reason to be pessimistic is that some people like secrecy and want to preserve secrecy. "If you think that disclosure is a good idea and secrecy is a bad idea, then to me it's a very weak argument to say (the proposed rule) is bad because it only applies to the House." Ideally, both chambers would approve a disclosure rule, but that's unlikely, the freshman lawmaker said, urging House colleagues to "step forward" on the ethics issue. Meanwhile, Rep. Pam Adcock, D-Little Rock, said she would try to gain traction for her proposal to ban smokeless tobacco from the House chamber, meeting rooms and offices. This summer she presented the proposal to the House Rules Committee but withdrew it from consideration before a vote for a lack of support. Last week, she said she may have the 67 votes to get it approved in the caucus. Several House members said they would support the proposed ban. "I think it sets a bad example when you've got young people in the gallery, or anyone for that matter, looking down at people spitting in a cup or whatever," said Rep. Rick Green, R-Van Buren. "I don't think it's too much to ask the members to refrain during the session when we're conducting state business." "If a majority of the members want to make it where you can't have spit tobacco ... then I'm OK with that," Dunn added. However, Wells said he probably would oppose a smokeless tobacco ban. "If they're not slopping that stuff all over the place and they're keeping it clean, and a guy wants to do that, that's his business," Wells said. "That's not my business." He said he voted against the statewide ban on smoking in most work places, which was approved by the Legislature in 2006 and signed into law by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee, for the same reason. |
