Ethics reform odds slipping

Some senators jeer House plan

Prospects for substantial ethics and lobbying reforms in state government dimmed Wednesday, as members of a Senate committee openly mocked a House-backed measure to require legislators to disclose more information about their financial interests.

That was the latest in a series of actions on reform measures that former Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, chairman of the N.C. Board of Ethics, said would dramatically weaken efforts to change the way state government operates.

Farmer said in an interview that lawmakers shouldn't bother moving forward with ethics and lobbying reform bills without making substantial changes first.

"That's just pretend ethics," Farmer said.

None of the roughly 10 reform bills dealing with lobbying, ethics and campaign finance have cleared the legislature. All stem from controversies surrounding House Speaker Jim Black's legislative and campaign activities.

While the House passed ethics reforms more than a month ago, senators began reviewing the legislation only in recent days.

On Wednesday, senators in a judiciary committee said the House ethics legislation required too much disclosure of financial information and created conflict-of-interest standards that are so stringent that no one could serve in the legislature.

"We need ethics reform, folks," said Sen. Jerry Tillman, an Archdale Republican, "but we don't need something no one can comply with."

Sen. David Hoyle, a Gaston County Democrat, said the issue is too complicated to take up this late in the session.

But the committee chairman, Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat, urged his colleagues to fix the bill and get it to the Senate floor.

Questions in House

In a related development, House sponsors of an ethics bill that would prohibit lawmakers from accepting most gifts said they had no idea the bill also included a provision that exempted the legislature from having to seek permission from the attorney general and the governor before hiring private lawyers at public expense.

"I have no idea why that's in there, and I would question why it's in there," said Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat.

The provision raises questions because Black sought taxpayer money to cover his office's legal costs in complying with federal subpoenas late last year. Gov. Mike Easley, at the advice of the attorney general, limited the amount of tax money to be spent to $30,000. Black's staff said it had expected to run up a legal bill of roughly $200,000.

Black's press secretary, Julie Robinson, said Black had not sought the provision.

Walker Reagan, a staff attorney for the legislature who helped draft the bill, said he put in the provision so that the legislature could hire outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints against lawmakers. He said it would be hard for staff members to do the investigations because they lack the expertise and could face retaliation from lawmakers.

But rather than investigate themselves, Farmer said, lawmakers need to pass an ethics bill that places the investigation of complaints with an independent agency. The bills still under consideration allow lawmakers to continue to police themselves.

Farmer also said lawmakers need to ban lobbyists from raising campaign money because it creates the appearance that lawmakers' votes are tied to campaign donations. That provision was dropped from House-backed legislation.

"They have a great opportunity to regain a lot of public support, and they are going to let it slip by," said Farmer, a former lawmaker.

Lawmakers involved in drafting the reform bills say there are constitutional issues in letting an outside agency conduct legislative ethics investigations and in barring lobbyists from fundraising.

Reform advocates say that other states with similar constitutions allow independent investigations and that a ban on fundraising by lobbyists is on the books in South Carolina.