A special study commission's draft proposals for improving state ethics laws and rules that apply to Maryland legislators are good, but don't go far enough because they leave ethics enforcement in the control of legislators.

That was the view of some speakers who urged the study commission at a public hearing last night to recommend putting state residents on a joint legislative committee that deals with ethics complaints against lawmakers.

About 40 people attended the hearing.

Kathleen S. Skullney, executive director of the government watchdog group Common Cause/Maryland, told the panel that the public will have little confidence in a system of ethics enforcement that excludes resident participation.

"I believe the public has to be part of the enforcement mechanism," Skullney said.

The 15-member commission, chaired by Democratic Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, was created in the wake of ethics controversies this year involving state Sen. Larry Young and Del. Gerald J. Curran, both Baltimore Democrats.

Young was expelled after the Senate found he had used his public office for private gain, and Curran resigned after the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics decided to investigate whether he had used his office to benefit his insurance business.

The Cardin panel's draft proposals call for strengthening financial disclosures required of lawmakers, tightening restrictions on their outside employment and giving more powers to the joint legislative committee that investigates complaints against lawmakers.

Skullney praised several of the panel's proposals, including a recommendation that a uniform, mandated process be set to handle ethics compliants regardless of how they are referred to the joint legislative committee.

Skullney said she also liked proposals that would require legislators to file more timely and thorough financial disclosures and make the information more easily accessible to the public.

Skullney said, however, that she views public participation on the committee that handles ethics complaints as a key to better enforcement of the rules and more public confidence in the General Assembly.

"Maryland had a pretty good law on the books and we had scandals anyway," Skullney said. "We are going to have an even better law. Are we going to have scandal anyway? It isn't what is on the books, it's what you do with it."

In written testimony, the League of Women Voters of Maryland said it strongly supports many of the changes proposed by the ethics study panel but was concerned that the "draft bill does not provide for public input to the process."

The league had urged the panel to recommend putting members of the public on the joint legislative ethics committee.

"We still believe that such representation will foster greater public trust in the integrity of the General Assembly, and bring different perspective to reviewing problem areas," league President Joan Paik and Vice President Kay Terry wrote.

The panel also heard from an ordinary voter on the subject.

Ann M. Lembo, who traveled from Baltimore to state her case, told the panel that private citizens should be part of the enforcement process. She said citizen members could be trusted to maintain confidentiality, noting that they already do so as members of juries.

"It would send a message that you're not trying to shut out the public," Lembo said.

Others who testified gave the panel's proposals positive reviews, while offering suggestions of how to improve the final product.

Stephen Buckingham, a lobbyist who represents nonprofit organizations, said a member of the public who files a complaint against a legislator with the Joint Ethics Committee should not be required to provide a written affidavit.

Buckingham said lobbyists would not make use of the process to report wayward legislators for fear their clients -- and their own incomes -- would be penalized. He urged the commission to propose a system that would let people file complaints with an assurance of confidentiality.

"I want guarantees it will not come back to bite me," he said.

Del. John S. Morgan, the only Republican House member who sits on the 12-member joint legislative ethics committee, urged the task force to call for greater representation for the minority party -- ideally an equal split -- to avoid perceptions of partisan bias.

Morgan also encouraged the panel to take a stand on the issue of giving the state prosecutor the power to subpoena witnesses and grant immunity -- a measure the General Assembly balked at earlier this year.

"It's a hollow statement unless there's an ability to back up what we might find in our deliberations with criminal prosecution," said Morgan, whose district includes parts of Howard and Prince George's counties.

Cardin said the issue falls outside the scope of the commission's work.

Morgan also urged the panel to extend disclosure requirements to expenditures by the executive branch on lobbying legislators. He noted a recent trip to Biloxi, Miss., by eight legislators at the expense of the state Department of Education as an example of spending that should be reported.

After the hearing, Cardin expressed satisfaction that "we're heading in the right direction." He said he is generally happy with the panel's draft bill but would look at matters raised at the hearing.

Cardin emphasized the study panel has taken no action and that the proposals are a "discussion draft." The panel will complete its work in September and then present its final recommendations to the General Assembly, he said.

Cardin said that is ahead of the original schedule to report by February.

"We wanted to complete our work by the fall for one simple reason -- we want the changes to take effect for the new legislature in January," Cardin said.

Among other things, the study panel is proposing hiring a full-time attorney to advise legislators on ethics concerns and to hold mandatory, annual ethics law training sessions. The attorney would be assigned to the joint legislative ethics committee.

The joint ethics committee also would be given subpoena power, which it does not have now, and greater authority to investigate ethics complaints if the Cardin panel's draft proposals are accepted by the legislature.

The proposals draft so far, if approved, would make several changes in the way business is done in Annapolis.

Among them:

The practice of lobbyists wining and dining legislators would be curtailed. Spending more than $20 on food and drink for a legislator would be a prohibited gift, unless the food and drink was at a reception to which all legislators, a delegation or all members of a House or Senate committee were invited.

A lawmaker would be prohibited from participating in any legislative issues involving a conflict of interest that is direct and personal to the legislator, the legislator's family members or his or her employer.

A legislator now can declare a presumed conflict of interest, but then "disclaim" it by signing a statement that says he or she can act "fairly, objectively and in the public interest" despite the apparent conflict.

Legislators would have to file annual financial disclosures by Feb. 1, near the start of the legislative session, rather than April 30, and they would have to list each source of income of $100 or more. Professionals such as lawyers, however, would not have to report their income by individual clients.

Pub Date: 8/11/98