Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics bill draws concern that new definitions could weaken recusal rules
Summary
Ned Gordon, chair of the legislative ethics committee (speaking for himself), warned that language in SB 570 attempting to define 'direct benefit' and 'financial interest' could create ambiguity and inadvertently dilute existing recusal protections established after House Bill 1388; committee members urged further drafting.
The Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 570, a proposal to clarify legislative-ethics standards. Senator Sharon Carson introduced the bill as an effort to define standards that currently are not well defined and said she would work with the legislative ethics committee on amendments.
Ned Gordon, chair of the legislative ethics committee, testified on his own behalf and said the bill as drafted risks creating more ambiguity about what constitutes a "direct benefit" or a "financial interest." Gordon recommended preserving the existing recusal approach—particularly the current focus on "direct and substantial financial benefit or detriment"—and suggested a limited exception that would allow a legislator with a disclosed conflict to speak at committee hearings to contribute expertise.
Why it matters: Gordon told the committee that the bill appears to lower the threshold that triggers recusal, which "would undo what was already in place before the recusal bill was put into place" and could dilute the recusal provisions the legislature previously established (citing House Bill 1388).
Committee reaction: Senators pressed for clarity around household definitions and other technical points; several members said they had sought outside legal opinions in the past and emphasized the need to avoid vagueness that could create inconsistent application. Gordon and senators agreed to continue working on the text before the bill advances.
Next steps: The committee closed testimony on SB 570 and asked the sponsor and ethics committee members to collaborate on revisions to the definitions and recusal language.
