Lawmakers’ bad behavior

Copening landed a new job recently, planning events and writing a newsletter for a homeowners association run by Del Webb Community Management. And by total coincidence, she’s also the author of a series of bills in the Nevada Legislature that would affect homeowners associations. And wouldn’t you know it, her new boss totally agrees with them.

“I needed a full-time job. They were kind enough to offer me a job,” Copening told the Las Vegas Sun.

Of course they were.

Meanwhile, political analyst Jon Ralston reported the company PokerStars treated two lawmakers to a trip to London late last year. The trip was supposed to end on the Isle of Man, where PokerStars is headquartered, but bad weather prevented it.

One of the London junketeers, Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, later introduced a bill to legalize Internet poker in Nevada, despite the fact the federal government considers the practice illegal.

It would seem, in both instances, lawmakers are guilty of a blatant conflict of interest. But, as ever in Carson City, it’s not so much what the politicians do that’s a screaming outrage; it’s the fact that what they do isn’t illegal.

A person could try complaining about Copening’s job to the Nevada Commission on Ethics, but he or she would be told the commission lacks jurisdiction. A state Supreme Court case found in 2009 that an executive branch agency such as the Ethics Commission would violate the separation of powers doctrine if it were to police “core legislative functions” of the legislative branch. And what could be more “core” than introducing bills, even bills that affect your private employer?

A person could complain to the Senate Ethics Committee, which was just organized this week. But you’d then be told legislative lawyers had vetted Copening’s job, and told her that it doesn’t constitute a conflict if her bills affect all homeowners associations equally. So the fact she’s taking a reported $40,000 from one HOA in particular doesn’t constitute a conflict of interest. Legally, at least.

Taking a junket to an island can’t possibly be a “core legislative function,” so perhaps the Ethics Commission could take a crack at that. After all, public officers are prohibited from accepting gifts that would “tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in the public officer’s or employee’s position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the public officer’s or employee’s public duties.”

But is a junket — air fare, lodging, meals — a gift, if the purpose of the underwritten trip is to gather facts about a public issue that may arise before the Legislature? And if not, does the requirement to report gifts worth more than $200 on annual disclosure forms apply? (Horne listed “none” on his disclosure form for 2011.) There’s no clear direction in the law, which means it’s a judgment call. Legally, at least.

There’s no way to prohibit lawmakers from jobs that create conflicts, aside from switching to a full-time Legislature, paying a full-time wage and prohibiting outside employment. And, granted, doing so would not necessarily make newly full-time lawmakers any more ethical, bright or dedicated than the ones we have now.

Tougher regulations regarding legislative travel — both in and out of session — could be written to at least provide transparency. Or travel underwritten by special interests could simply be banned.

But Nevada’s current system, with giant loopholes and vague statutes, seems to be the worst of both worlds, an invitation to mischief, which leads to mistrust, which breeds apathy and cynicism. 

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. His column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.