In a conference call this morning, 93rd House district Democratic candidate Robin Abbott announced a plan to bring accountability and transparency to Virginia’s virtually non-existent ethical process. “Until we reform the backroom deals, hold our lawmakers accountable for their actions, and insist on transparency, we cannot move Virginia forward,” Abbot said. Her proposal focuses on two areas: empowerment of the House and Senate Ethics Advisory panels and to curtail the influence of lobbyists. (Entire plan is below the fold.)
In response to a query, Abbott insists that this plan is not directed at her opponent, Republican incumbent Phil Hamilton, who relationship with Old Dominion University has received scrutiny. Abbott said that this plan is directed at the entire General Assembly.
To be honest, I’m not sure the plan goes far enough. I’d like to see an independent ethics commission, rather than one where the legislators police themselves. With Virginia’s “anything goes as long as you disclose” method, and despite the wonderful work that vpap has done in making the financial disclosures available, it is still difficult for the average voter to determine if a potential conflict exists. But if this is the best we can hope for, shining light on the procedure – come on, the legislator gets to decide whether the proceedings are public or not? – is a step in the right direction.
As for the lobbyists, Abbott offers some commonsense solutions, ones which are sure to garner disagreement from lawmakers and lobbyists alike. Put your flame suit on, Robin, because you’re going to need it 😉
Accountability, Transparency, and Reform Initiative
With our economy in crisis and our transportation system broken, Virginians are seeking real solutions to the difficult challenges we face. But our legislators in Richmond fail to solve these problems year after year because of partisan politics, senseless ideological battles, and an insiders’ network that prevents progress. Too many elected officials in Richmond use their positions of power in inappropriate and unethical ways. And though it may not be illegal, the cozy relationship between some of our legislators and those with a vested interest in state business is certainly suspect.
As a working mom who often had to choose between medical care for my children and putting food on the table, I know firsthand the struggles that families are facing in these tough times. As a consumer rights advocate, I have fought for military families who could not stand up to powerful interests themselves. And I am running for the House of Delegates to shake up the way business is done in Richmond so we can create good jobs for the hard-working families of Newport News and James City County.
But until we reform the backroom deals, hold our lawmakers accountable for their actions, and insist on transparency, we cannot move Virginia forward. As a Delegate, I pledge to lead the effort to bring much-needed reform to Richmond.
Empower the House and Senate Ethics Advisory Panels
Currently, the House and Senate essentially “self-police” themselves, with five-member Ethics Advisory Panels appointed by each body. When a complaint is made, the panels conduct a preliminary investigation of the legislator in question (the proceedings of which may be made public only at his or her request). If a violation is determined to have occurred, the matter is referred to either the full legislative body or the Attorney General’s office, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction. We need to shine some sunlight on this process.
- The House and Senate panels should be combined into a single General Assembly Ethics Advisory Panel, with an additional member appointed by the Governor.
- The panel should make all investigations and proceedings public, preferably on a designated page on the General Assembly website. This is a simple, cost-effective way to keep the public informed.
- On a yearly basis, the Ethics Panel should review all lawmakers’ budget requests and personal financial disclosure forms in order to alert Senators and Delegates to possible conflicts of interest, and publish their findings on the General Assembly web site.
Curtail Lobbyist Influence
If we want to restore the citizens’ trust in their state government, we must curtail the overwhelming influence of the special interests in Richmond. As the law stands now, legislators are allowed to jet off to exotic destinations on a lobbyist’s tab, as long as they report it on their personal finance disclosure forms. If a group has a pressing concern regarding upcoming legislation, they should have that discussion in an office at the General Assembly Building – not in a private jet en route to the Masters Golf Tournament.
- The General Assembly should prohibit lawmakers from accepting travel, gifts or dinners paid for by registered lobbyists year-round.
- The General Assembly should prohibit lawmakers from accepting any gifts valued above $100.00 from any person except a member of their family.
- Virginia should adopt Congress’ two-year “cooling off period” for lawmakers who become lobbyists, in order to curb the revolving door in Richmond.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Thanks Robin for stepping forward on this issue.
Ethics reform? This doesn’t look like anything that hasn’t been proposed before. HB1738 introduced by Bob Purkey would have “expanded the period during which a former legislator or certain former state and local government officers and employees may not lobby from one to two years” It got shot down completely. A yearly review? Give me a break, that won’t do a thing unless the yearly review is during the session. Prohibiting gifts? Is she crazy? If you can’t see how a law with that phrase in it would wreck havoc on personal lives then you shouldn’t be a delegate. His best friend wants to give him a gift, not allowed, his former mentor, not allowed, his wife’s friend, not allowed. Birthday party? No way. The phrase registered lobbyist should be inserted into there, but it is not. She put it in the above statement, but not the one referring to gifts. If it was a mistake then that shows a lot about her campaign, if it wasn’t a mistake then it shows she has a novice understanding of just what laws can do when you don’t think them through.
Max, perhaps you are unaware of how legislation ends up getting written. The proposal ends up going to legislative services, where the proposal is turned into legalese in accordance with the code and the intent.
AFAIK, none of the legislators actually write the legislation.
So rather than nitpicking the placement (or lack thereof) of a word, why not look at the concept?
Besides, I’ve not seen anything from your candidate on this…
I understand that, but then why would she clearly state no dinners from lobbyists on one part and no gifts period on the next? Your intent is your intent. She clearly intended to mean no lobbyist dinners, would she not clearly mean no gifts to legislators? If she meant from lobbyists she would have put that in, but she did not. This shows she either overlooked it or did not think through the ramifications of her idea.
I did look at the concept. It is a good idea to have ethics reform, but this is another one of those ideas that allows you to campaign on something, but not actually risk the skin to make a real, effective change. You said yourself it probably does not go far enough. I’m sure Abbott knows enough to be able to point out far bigger and more serious problems with our handling of ethics.
As for my candidate; check your email for our press kit. People don’t want to hear about ethics reform in the 90th, they want to hear about new jobs, better schools, and government that serves the people, not the other way around. It makes sense for Abbott to send a release, if Jason did it would seem like he is questioning Delegate Howells ethics and we most certainly have no reason to do that. Gotta stay on message, 50% of freshman fail in Norfolk schools, fixing that is more important than banning legislators from receiving gifts.
The best ethics reform of all would be for delegates to step up and call each other out. They know what goes on, people talk, people know, no one cares enough to make a big deal out of it. You can have laws, but you need personal responsibility most of all.
No one wants to piss people off, its a systemic failure in our system. So and so does something wrong, but if you hate him for it you lose your good standing with so and so and that affects your business relationship with x client, so your better of just sucking it up… The same thing happens in court. The defense attorneys make a lot of money, they like to go on nice vacations. Do they really want to call out the prosecution for misconduct all the time, no matter how serious? They want to get that court date changed so they can go to Hawaii with their girlfriend, they don’t want to the CA office hating them exposing their corruption.
Actually, since the gifts are under the heading of “Curtailing lobbyist influence” I’m not sure why you’re having trouble with understanding what she’s talking about.
Haven’t gotten your press kit.
She specifically mentioned registered lobbyists, then a blanket statement banning gifts to legislators. I can see how she would think banning gifts over $100 is a good idea. Someone who owns a company could give a delegate a big gift in hopes of swaying them on a vote, but they would not be a registered lobbyist. I am sure that is the logic she used when she wrote that statement, but she must not have taken into account birthday parties or the like. She clearly said except from the candidates family, which means she clearly meant to exclude everyone but the family from giving gifts. If she meant no registered lobbyists could give gifts then she would not have put in the exclusion for family because family are clearly not registered lobbyists (though they could be). Again, it clearly says no gifts from “any person.” So I do not see what you do not understand about that.
As for the press kit, I sent it from vote4call@gmail.com a few minutes after I made the last comment.