Raleigh Dispatch: The ethics debate
Don’t panic.
Really.
I know you heard about that debate on the House floor last week. You know, the one about the ethics bill.
Yes, that quote from Mecklenburg County Democrat Drew Saunders is pretty much all you need to know about it.
"Even baby Jesus accepted gifts and I don't believe it corrupted him," Saunders told the chamber. I’m not sure what kind of reaction that line got on the floor - I couldn't hear over the guffaws from my fellow scribes listening in the pressroom.
The honorables didn’t manage to slander any other major religious figures during the remainder of the debate, but you sort of got the feeling these boys and girls were missing the point.
But don’t panic.
Really. This could all turn out okay...sort of...maybe...I think.
The House is brewing up better than a half-dozen ethics bills. Along with the legislative ethics one that they passed after that infamous debate last week, rules for executive branch officials have already been sent over to the Senate.
Gov. Mike Easley, with the advice of former Judge Robert Farmer has sent his own proposals to the General Assembly. Oh, and the Senate is rumored to have some ethics bills of their own in the works.
So the honorables are up to their elbows in ethics-related proposals, ideas on how to make public servants serve the public.
I know, I know. There’s plenty of reason for doubt something will really get done.
“I think this bill is over kill,” said Rep. Earl Jones, a Greensboro Democrat. “Really, this bill isn’t about legislative ethics, this bill is about legislative antics.”
Yeah, that was on the floor of the House, during the baby Jesus debate.
But don’t panic...not yet.
Here’s the thing. Pols know that even in the best of times, members of the public think they may not be behaving themselves the way one might hope when they punch to button to vote for someone. Just the phrase “legislative ethics” is likely to prompt nervous tittering from the general public.
And after nearly a year of hearing about industry donations and seeming quid-pro-quos and questionable appointments to high profile boards and all the rest of it, well, the honorables know they need to do something.
I’m pretty sure.
And they know – they have to know, don’t they – that the something in question has to be meaningful. Don’t they?
So, yes, the House bill, as currently configured, after that debate and the baby Jesus thing, would allow someone to take a gift worth up to $1,000 and not report it to the folks back home. (The old threshold was $200.) While no one may be willing to sell his or her soul in $999.99 increments, could I possibly interest you something in a floor speech or “no” vote in a committee?
But others have a chance to weigh in. Heck, Senate Democrats seem mad enough at the House Democrats right now that they might send back a bill with the ceiling lowered to anything worth more than a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger a member's local Wendy's just out of spite.
And from what I’ve seen of how the General Assembly operates, with so many bills on the same topic floating about, there’s a decent chance they’ll all – or at least a good number of them – will get rolled into an omnibus piece of legislation. Think of it like the budget, a bunch of complicated pieces of legislation, related but disparate, can get tied together into something sensible, or workable, or passable, or something.
What really matters is what the bill that heads to final passage looks like. There’s a long way to go in this ethics debate. And call me Polly-Anna, but it could still come out well.
Really.
I think.
It’s possible.
---
Extra innings:
For those of you from Triad, the folks who voted to raise the gift ceiling for legislators included:
Reps. Alma Adams, Nelson Cole, Maggie Jeffus and Earl Jones. (All of those are Democrats)
The no votes (ie: those who favored a tighter ethics bill) included Reps. John Blust, Harold Brubaker, Pricey Harrison, Hugh Holliman and Laura Wiley. (Blust, Burebaker and Wiley are Republicans; Harrison and Holliman are Democrats.)