Editorial: Ethics reform at Capitol

The shock waves from the bribery convictions of two former state lawmakers, who accepted money in exchange for influencing legislation, are reverberating through the current session of the Legislature.

But that’s a good thing, considering the bad situations. The last of nearly two dozen bills recommended by a blue-ribbon commission to reform government practices — a commission created by the state House in the wake of the bribery scandals — cleared the House this week and were sent to the Senate for consideration. Other bills recommended by the state ethics and campaign spending commissions also crossed over from one chamber to the other.

The bills cover a broad gamut of reforms, including crackdowns on various types of fraud, violations of campaign finance laws and nepotism. They also would impose new requirements to make the work of lobbyists at the Legislature more transparent and easier to track, as well as tighten the rules for campaign contributions and spending. Included in the latter are House Bills 726 and 89, which propose a long-needed prohibition against elected officials soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during the legislative session.

Also, significantly, there are numerous measures that attempt to improve public access to government. Among them:

>> HB 719, which would cap or waive the cost of reproducing certain government records requested by the public. Too often, legitimate requests for public records are stymied by agencies demanding exorbitant fees or excessive time to produce them, effectively denying access.

>> HB 723 would expand Sunshine Law requirements to legislatively appointed bodies. It’s a step forward to ensure public access to and participation in government meetings.

>> HB 712 would encourage boards (with the exception of licensing boards) to provide the public with access to recordings of their meetings as well as the minutes. Certainly, watching or hearing a meeting is much more informative than the bare-bones written minutes.

Some reform proposals did not make it. HB 725, which would have established the office of public advocate and created a bill of rights for the public, was rejected out of concern it would violate the state Constitution. Nonetheless, it’s encouraging that some elements were worked into revisions of the state House rules.

One of them is a requirement that committees and committee chairs explain why they are deferring — essentially killing — a bill. This should be standard practice in both the House and Senate. It’s hoped such a requirement would disrupt the notion that “it’s easy to kill bills,” as infamously stated by former state Senate majority leader and convicted felon J. Kalani English, whose bribery conviction was an impetus for the reform measures.