AP News, March 23rd, 2007
Jeff Siddoway is a rancher who sells hunting trips for trophy elk on his land in eastern Idaho. He is also a Republican state senator.
So when Siddoway joined a 7-1 committee decison to kill legislation outlawing "shooter-bull" operations _ where hunters stalk penned elk for a fee _ his inbox was flooded with e-mails telling him he should have abstained from voting.
Democrats argued that not stepping aside gave the appearance of being "on the take," even though Siddoway consulted with the attorney general's office and followed Idaho Senate rules requiring that he first disclose his personal interest before weighing in.
"It was just so black and white," Siddoway, who represents a sprawling district that stretches from the Continental Divide to the remote lava fields of eastern Idaho, said of the rules allowing him to vote after disclosing his personal stake. "It was the right thing to do."
Lawmakers from Alaska to Virginia are wrestling with similar conflict-of-interest issues, highlighting a tension that has been at the heart of citizen legislatures since their founding: members leave real-world jobs to serve part-time in their state assemblies, where they often address issues they hold dear.
"Having a conflict of interest is not a bad thing. It's to be expected in a citizen legislature, where people come to the capital for a while, then return to their jobs," said Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "It's what somebody does with that conflict that's the issue."
Conflict-of-interest rules vary, sometimes greatly, from legislature to legislature.
In nearly two-thirds of 99 state chambers _ Nebraska's Legislature is uniquely unicameral _ lawmakers must abstain from voting in certain situations, Kern said. Thirteen states have no provision against voting on a conflict-of-interest measure.
Last month, a Virginia lawmaker who serves on an energy company's board of directors and who owns more than $250,000 in stock abstained on a deregulation bill.
Also in February, three Wyoming lawmakers who own rental apartments abstained on a bill requiring property owners to clean up methamphetamine labs _ or risk reimbursing the state.
Some states, such as California in 1966, switched to full-time legislatures, in part because they thought professional lawmakers could better separate themselves from conflicts.
Still, most others are unwilling to follow suit.
"Some of our best members have jobs that require them to be there on Mondays and then back on the job Thursday afternoon and Friday," Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh said. "And I'm glad they're able to do that."
Founders of citizen legislatures encouraged dynamic interplay between voting and conflict of interest, said Mike O'Connell, counsel for the Washington State Legislative Ethics Board.
"They wanted people to come here, then go back to their districts and get beat on," O'Connell said. "They didn't want them hiding out here all the time. They don't want professional politicians."
Washington's ethics board is one reason the state gets the highest rating for conflict-of-interest disclosure from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity. Idaho, which doesn't have an ethics board, is ranked last among all states, according to the group.
Some Democratic leaders in Idaho say Siddoway crossed the line.
"People don't have a good feeling about politicians anyway," House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet said. "When they see politicians voting their own self-interest, that brings down the reputation of all elected officials. The perception is we're all on the take."
Senate GOP leaders bristle at such talk.
The Senate's rules require that two-thirds of the chamber agree to a member's request to be excused.
"That tells me our predecessors in this body had a bigger concern about not voting," President Pro Tem Robert Geddes said.
Lawmakers have been excused when setting salaries of their spouses who are judges, among other things, Geddes said.
For instance, after Siddoway helped kill the bill to ban shooter-bull hunts on elk farms, he received permission to abstain from voting on separate legislation to regulate elk ranches.
Siddoway noted that the 24-9 passage of that measure wasn't close enough for his vote to have made a difference, so he wanted to avoid the conflict-of-interest controversy that accompanied his vote in the committee.
"I don't want this to be about me," he said. "I want it to be about the elk."
___
Associated Press writers Erik Schelzig in Nashville, Tenn., and Kathleen Miller in Cheyenne., Wyo., contributed to this report.
