Lawmakers debate ban on lobbyists serving on boards, commissions
The legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee voted in favor of such a bill, despite some misgivings from legislators who questioned whether it was fair to prevent lobbyists from serving on everything from university boards of trustees to child poverty task forces.
It was one of several ethics reform bills that advanced Monday. They included two proposals that revoke the pensions of corrupt state and municipal employees and officials, beginning 10 years ago.
Sen. Gayle Slossberg, committee co-chairwoman, voted against the lobbying bill. She said she fears that some lobbyists who represent the homeless, domestic violence victims and other vulnerable groups would be adversely affected.
"As it is drafted currently, I wouldn't support something that was going to leave abused women and children without a voice at the state level," said Slossberg, D-Milford.
"For me, this particular piece of legislation is overly broad in trying to address an issue," she said, referring to it as using a sledge hammer to kill a tick.
Sen. Judith Freedman, R-Westport, complained that the bill treated lobbyists as if they were "subhuman."
But committee co-chairman, Rep. Christopher Caruso, stood by the proposal.
"They are a special class. They are not members of the public when they come here. I dare say, in many cases, if they weren't paid, you wouldn't see them in the building," said Caruso, D-Bridgeport.
He argued that lobbyists should not be deciding public policy.
Both Slossberg and Caruso said the lobbying bill could change as it winds its way through the legislative process. Meanwhile, legislative leaders will ultimately have to marry two dueling, ethics reform bills -- one from the House of Representatives and the other from the Senate -- before the session ends in May.
The two bills both were passed out of the GAE Committee on Monday.
Both would revoke the pensions of public employees and officials convicted of committing a corrupt act as part of their job. And both would be retroactive to 1998, ensnaring former Gov. John G. Rowland and others who've been convicted of various crimes. Similar bills to revoke those pensions retroactively have died in past sessions.
Both bills also require state lawmakers to undergo ethics training.
But they differ on creating a special committee to deal with ethical misdeeds committed by state lawmakers. The Senate bill creates a special, bipartisan ethics committee, while the House members prefer amending the House rules.
The House bill would ban lawmakers from introducing bills on behalf of their employers, while the Senate version would create a system where lawmakers could not introduce legislation if a "reasonable person" believes there's a conflict.
The House bill also requires lawmakers who witness a bribe or are presented a bribe to report it to authorities; bans unclassified state employees from working on political matters during state time; and limits how much can be spent on gift to a legislator for a "life event," such as the birth of a child, to $1,000.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments