House bill 1505 would create immunity for legislators who follow disclosure rules and clarify confidentiality for ethics proceedings

House Bill 1505, introduced by House Floor Leader Mike Lafour, would add criminal immunity and an affirmative defense for members of the legislative assembly who vote on measures after disclosing a potential conflict of interest according to the chamber’s rules or after relying on informal advice from the Ethics Commission’s staff. The measure also tightens and clarifies confidentiality provisions to allow individuals to consult counsel, share records with legal representatives and, in limited circumstances, disclose information when the respondent consents.

Leader Mike Lafour described the bill’s goal as offering clarity and fairness for citizen legislators who have outside occupations and possible overlapping interests. “When individuals run for election to the legislative assembly, they do so with the realization that you’re giving up time with your family, your friends, your businesses,” Lafour said. “This bill…provides that clarity.”

Nut graf: Sponsors say HB1505 seeks to protect legislators who disclose conflicts and rely on reasonable guidance while preserving the Ethics Commission’s investigatory role; both the Attorney General’s Office and the Ethics Commission expressed conditional support for an amended version of the bill, while some individual public commenters opposed the measure on optics grounds.

Emily Thompson of Legislative Council explained amendment 25124401004, which narrows and clarifies the immunity provisions. Under the amendment, a legislator who discloses a personal or unique interest on the floor, or who reasonably relies on informal guidance from the Ethics Commission’s executive director or written guidance, would have criminal immunity for the act of voting on an official measure. Thompson said the amendment also clarifies that the executive director’s informal guidance can be the basis for the immunity and that the bill preserves the commission’s authority to investigate alleged violations via the enforcement process described in related bills.

The Attorney General’s Office said it supports HB1505 as filed and that the bill prevents criminal prosecution of legislators who comply with constitutionally authorized rules that let the full chamber decide whether a conflict prevents voting. The AG’s office also urged the committee to retain the statutory protections allowing counsel access and to clarify records confidentiality so state employees and officials can obtain legal advice while participating in commission matters.

The Ethics Commission testified that many of its concerns about 1505 were alleviated by the proposed amendment and that it supports provisions clarifying informal guidance and the closure authority for the executive director, as long as formal parameters for informal guidance are adopted through rules.

Opponents: One public witness urged the committee to reject the bill, arguing the measure creates bad optics and could be misused; several committee members acknowledged optics concerns but said the rules for disclosure were intended to protect public trust while allowing a citizen legislature to function.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on HB1505 after extended discussion and indicated staff and stakeholders would continue to refine language; no committee vote is recorded in the hearing transcript.