Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill to codify conflict-of-interest disclosures into law
Summary
The House passed House Bill 3 on Jan. 26, 1995, moving conflict-of-interest definitions now in chamber rules into statute, clarifying oral and form disclosure requirements and retaining criminal penalties described as a class B misdemeanor.
House Bill 3, a proposal to codify the chamber’s conflict-of-interest definitions into state statute, passed the Utah House on Jan. 26, 1995, by a vote of 69-0.
The bill, sponsored by Representative Byron L. Harvard, puts language now found in House rules into statute, including definitions of “immediate family” and the conditions under which a legislator must disclose a financial interest. Harvard said the measure clarifies existing confusion about what constitutes a personal or private interest and aligns statutory language with the joint rule previously adopted by the legislature.
Supporters said placing the definition in statute will make obligations clearer to members; opponents warned codification could reduce the chamber’s flexibility to change rules and could shift disputes toward judicial review. Representative Oskarsson cautioned that embedding the rule in statute could constrain the legislature’s ability to change procedures by rule, while others asked whether the change would hand more authority to courts.
The bill also addresses disclosure mechanics. The House adopted language to ensure that if a conflict is properly disclosed on the statutorily required form, an additional oral declaration is not necessary; an oral statement is required only for conflicts not captured on that form. During floor questions, members discussed how broadly members have interpreted general form entries and whether more specific on-floor statements will be required in borderline cases.
Floor debate included discussion of the criminal penalty attached to the existing statute, described in debate as a class B misdemeanor, and whether the penalty and statutory language were appropriately calibrated. Harvard and others said codification would make the law more definite and easier to follow.
The House voted to advance and transmit HB 3 to the Senate with a unanimous recorded vote of 69 yes, 0 no. The bill’s codification of disclosure rules is intended to remove ambiguity about members’ reporting obligations and to align the statute with the joint rule the chamber has been using.
