WHAT'S the sense of having an ethics committee if state legislators defy the panel's recommendations?
What's the sense of even pretending the General Assembly lives by a code of conduct when its most senior member feels free to make up his own rules?
Once again, state lawmakers are embarrassing themselves before the public. This time it is Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr., a Democrat from eastern Baltimore County. He's been in the Senate since 1966. You'd think he'd know a conflict of interest when he sees one.
Not so. His employer, lawyer Peter G. Angelos, is the chief proponent of a bill that would lift a cap on damages for hundreds of asbestos cases. This could mean millions of dollars for Mr. Angelos' law firm.
Should Mr. Stone vote on a bill that would generously benefit his employer? Of course not. Indeed, the legislature's ethics committee went out of its way to recommend to Mr. Stone that he refrain from voting.
Yet the senator said he would go ahead and vote on the bill because many asbestos victims are from his Sparrows Point district. "I owe it to my constituents," he said.
Mr. Stone's decision is wrong on two counts. First, he owes it to his colleagues to abide by the ethics committee's judgment. Otherwise, he is mocking the legislature's self-policing practices.
Second, his vote would be a flagrant conflict of interest. The bill was written and is heavily backed by Mr. Stone's employer, who would be its prime financial beneficiary. Enriching your boss isn't part of a senator's job description.
Mr. Stone's defiance comes at the same time General Assembly leaders are trying to overcome resistance to ethics reform measures, which could reach the House and Senate floors today. A number of longtime lawmakers don't like the idea of being barred from accepting free meals from lobbyists or strengthening the ethics committee.
Voters are the victims. Lawmakers were not elected to live high off lobbyists' expense accounts or to pad their employers' pockets. Legislative leaders must persuade their members to abide by a higher standard of conduct.
They have to let their colleagues know that those who refuse to change their ways will face consequences.