Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to limit state employees from acting against the state sparks extensive debate and dies in committee
Summary
Representative Judy Boyle’s House Bill 319, which would restrict state employees from serving as paid or unpaid agents, consultants, experts or attorneys in claims against the state, generated extended questioning about whistleblower protections and was not moved out of committee.
Representative Judy Boyle (Dist. 9) introduced House Bill 319, which the sponsor described as intended to prevent state employees from acting as paid advocates or lead attorneys in legal actions against their state employer. “This is, to make sure that our state employees are not fighting against the state in different issues,” Boyle said.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on scope and exceptions. Representative Joe Alfieri and others asked whether the bill would chill whistleblowers; Boyle replied that she had been “assured by the attorney general’s office” that the existing whistleblower statute—identified in the hearing as Title 6, chapter 20, section 1–4—would protect whistleblowers. The bill defines “assist” to include acting “as a paid or unpaid agent, consultant, expert, attorney” in a claim against the state and specifies that serving as a fact witness when properly subpoenaed would not be prohibited.
Several legislators raised hypothetical and concrete scenarios: a law professor doing private litigation on weekends; state employees serving as subject-matter experts in litigation; fact witnesses in employment or abuse cases; and the limits of “receiving any compensation” language. Representative Alfieri said, “I am very uncomfortable with the provisions of this. I swore an oath to protect the constitution of The United States, the constitution of the State of Bridal. I did not swear an oath of loyalty to the State.” Representative Scogg warned the measure would be “a little bit overbroad” and could chill reporting of criminal conduct.
Sponsor Boyle repeatedly said whistleblower protections would remain in place and that the Attorney General’s Office and Department of Lands had reviewed aspects of the bill. No one signed up to testify in support or opposition. The committee did not move the bill; the sponsor said, “Well, there's no motion to vote against. So the bill is gonna die for lack of a motion.”
