Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LCCMR asks staff to draft statutory clarification on conflicts of interest, replacing 2023 voting restriction
Summary
After hours of debate about the 2023 change that bars members with a direct financial interest from voting on the final recommendations package, the commission directed staff to develop draft statutory language (option 2) that would replace the 2023 restriction with clearer prohibitions tied to project-management roles and direct personal payments.
The commission voted Nov. 19 to ask staff to prepare statutory language clarifying the LCCMR conflict-of-interest rules, a move that responds to member confusion since a 2023 change added a prohibition against voting on the final recommendations package when a member has a "direct personal financial interest."
Representative Jordan moved that staff develop option 2: repeal or replace the 2023 restriction with statutory language that (a) restores the pre-2023 approach to conflicts for most matters and (b) codifies a strong prohibition on members serving as project managers on proposals or personally receiving grant funds. The goal is to preserve a clear, enforceable boundary while restoring the ability of technically experienced citizen members to participate in most votes.
In a lengthy discussion, some citizen members and commissioners said the 2023 change unintentionally disqualified experts who work in fields covered by ENRTF proposals (for example, university researchers or agency staff) and thus reduced useful expertise at the table. Other commissioners and legislators said higher public scrutiny argues for statutory clarity and clear limits on direct payments. Staff summarized survey results showing mixed views across members and recommended the three options before the commission.
The motion passed on a roll call; staff will draft the proposed statutory text and return it for commission review. The commission also asked staff to develop procedural and policy options (conflict-management plans, clearer definitions of direct vs. indirect financial interest, and possible sanctions for violations) for future meetings.
Next steps: staff to draft statutory language consistent with option 2 and to prepare proposed procedural/policy updates for the commission to consider in December.
