SERVING as a lawmaker in a part-time legislature can be devilishly agonizing. Take the predicament of state Sen. Norman R. Stone.

Mr. Stone is usually a quiet presence, a solid vote for organized labor. He served as a committee chairman for a time, but now is relegated to figurehead status as president pro tempore. He's the most senior lawmaker, originally elected in 1962.

In his non-legislative life, he's an associate lawyer -- not a partner -- for one of the nation's top asbestos litigants, Peter Angelos. The senator handles workmen's compensation cases when he's not wearing his other hat as a lawmaker.

Now Mr. Stone is caught in an ethical dilemma. His employer wants his support on a bill; his legislative colleagues on the joint ethics committee have told him not to vote.

The problem is that without Mr. Stone's vote, Mr. Angelos could lose his bill. The legislation would lift the cap on jury awards of damages in certain types of cases -- primarily asbestos litigation. This could mean a mega-jackpot for Mr. Angelos and his clients, many of whom are former steelworkers in Mr. Stone's district.

Mr. Stone says he owes it to his constituents to vote on this bill. But if he does, he disregards the wishes of the ethics committee, which has told Mr. Stone to refrain from voting. The reason given: the financial benefits that would flow from the bill to his employer.

Maryland lawmakers are sensitive to ethics matters right now. Last year, one member was expelled and another resigned because of monetary gains they made while in public office. A third legislator came in for deserved criticism this year for taking a $9,000 commission on a real estate deal from a lobbyist.

This puts Mr. Stone in an awkward spot. He's an earnest man who tries to do the right thing. But what's right in this case?

The measure would benefit his constituents but also give his employer a multi-million-dollar pay day. It would also give another ethical black eye to legislators who want to adhere to conflict of interest rules.

At the moment, both the House and Senate are debating ways to tighten Maryland's ethics law, which is vague.

But Mr. Stone's case doesn't fall in a gray area. He's simply got two strong but conflicting interests staring him in the face.

It is not an easy decision. Mr. Stone has served so long in the Senate -- and cares so deeply about that institution. Ignoring the strong admonition of the ethics committee would make a mockery of the legislature's efforts to police itself. This conflict of interest is too obvious to ignore.

Under proposed ethics reforms, this decision would be taken out of Mr. Stone's hands: A legislator would be barred from voting on or attempting to influence a bill when there is a "direct and personal" gain flowing to a legislator's employer. No exceptions.

That's the kind of fire wall lawmakers should applaud. Elected officials need to make it clear to the public that there is a strict standard expected of them.

Proposed ethics reforms still have too many gray areas. There's no strong enforcement mechanism, either. Only on rare occasions will members of the ethics committee crack down on a fellow legislator.

But if the reform bill clears up ambiguities, lawmakers like Mr. Stone would be better off. They would know where to draw the line when the demands of making a living clash with the demands of public office.

Barry Rascovar is a deputy editorial page editor.

Pub Date: 3/10/99