In its review of conflict of interests and disclosure, the subcommittee solicited and received information from a number of sources including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Municipal League, and the Council of State Governments. Statutory provisions pertaining to conflict of interests, financial disclosure statements and ethics commissions in twenty-four states with part-time legislatures similar to Virginia's were studied, and comments and suggestions were requested from various sources within the Commonwealth. Additionally, in an effort to broaden its perspective, the subcommittee added six citizen members, including representatives from the news media.
Senator J. Harry Michael, Jr. served as a member of the subcommittee and made significant contributions. He was, however, confirmed as a member of the federal judiciary and resigned from the General Assembly prior to the completion of this report.
Three areas of concern were pinpointed for detailed study and analysis: (1) the adequacy of the Commonwealth's present financial disclosure requirements; (2) the advisability of creating an ethics commission; and (3) the adequacy of the-statutory provisions of the Conflict of Interests Act. Separate subcommittees were set up to consider each area and report their recommendations back to the full subcommittee for consideration.
The subcommittee studying ethics commissions recommended the establishment of a commission to oversee the General .Assembly, but one which would not be involved with State or local officers or employees. It was suggested that this commission be authorized to issue advisory opinions to members of the General Assembly, investigate complaints against members, and review their financial disclosure forms. Citing a lack of need for such a commission in Virginia and possible constitutional infirmities, the full subcommittee, by a divided vote, declined this recommendation.
However, a number of proposals from the other two subcommittees were found to have merit and are reflected in the attached draft legislation.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The recommended changes in and additions to Virginia's Conflict of Interest Act are intended, generally speaking, to enhance ethical awareness among public officials while at the same time affording protection of the public interest by strengthening financial disclosure requirements.
This single change in § 2.1-347 is for the purpose of placing this section in accord with an Attorney General's opinion dated Jury 9, 1971, which interprets its wording to allow localities to have stricter standards than the Act itself.
The word "financial" was felt to be a more appropriate description of the interests involved and disclosure required than the word "economic," and this substitution has been made throughout the Act.
A number of amendments have been made to that portion of § 2.1-358 which precedes the sample disclosure form. These changes are basically for the purposes of clarification, to make the form and the statutory language consistent, and to delete wording which is essentially meaningless.
Substantive changes within the disclosure form include a requirement for reporting payments of expenses (exceeding one hundred dollars) by others in connection with any appearance as an official off the Commonwealth relating to a governmental function. The source must be named and the occasion described (part IV). Under part III of the form, entities represented before State governmental agencies must be named, not only as to personal representation, but also under subpart B which covers such representation by those with a close financial association to the discloser. In each instance the State governmental agency must be named. A requirement that entities be named to whom services were furnished (for compensation), in excess of one thousand dollars is inserted in subpart C. The present form only calls for identification by type of entity. All members of the General Assembly must sign and have acknowledged an affirmation under part V of the form. Basically, this affirmation pledges a prompt response to inquiries by the appropriate legislative committee and asserts that the member has not intentionally used his legislative position for a self-serving purpose or one contrary to the public interest.
Subsection (e) has been amended to subject a legislator to censure by the house in which he sits for a wilful misstatement of a material fact on his disclosure form.
The subcommittee also added subsections (f), (g), and (h) to the end of § 2.1-358. In light of the extraordinary demands on the time and energy of Virginia's citizen legislators, the subcommittee realized that the potential for unintended breaches of ethical conduct and disclosure requirements are at least as great as that for intentional misconduct. With this in mind, the subcommittee recommended mandatory review of all members' disclosure forms by the Rules Committee of each house or by such other committee as may be designated by each house [subsection (f)].
Currently, there is no formal review of discloser forms filed by legislators. Should any form be inadequate, the member filing it is notified and given an opportunity to bring his form into compliance. Under subsection (g), ten percent of the membership of either house may request that the form of a member be reviewed again on the basis of newly discovered facts. Also, additional review may take place upon a majority vote of the Rules Committee (or other designated committee) on its own motion or upon a written request from a member of that house. Subsection (h) provides for removal from all committee assignments of any member who fails to amend his disclosure form appropriately after it has been found to be inadequate.
Draft legislation incorporating these recommended revisions Is attached.
