Idaho’s conflict of interest laws have enough loopholes to be served as Swiss cheese

When I first arrived in Idaho, the Idaho Legislature was in the process of censuring one of their own, I thought, for a conflict of interest in voting case. For someone coming from Illinois, a state not celebrated for its ethics in government, that was pretty impressive. Later I learned that there was much more to that case, and the censure was not for the conflict of interest.

Rather, in both Illinois and Idaho, legislators who have a conflict of interest can still sponsor or vote for a bill if they simply declare the conflict! That seemed absurdly insufficient to me in my 10 years in the Illinois legislature, as it does now in Idaho. Idaho law even allows an additional loophole that could often make declaring the conflict unnecessary.

Idaho’s conflict-of-interest law is written with enough loopholes to serve as Swiss cheese to anyone interested in ethics in government. When Idaho Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, recently declared a conflict of interest because he owned an alarm company that could benefit from legislation he sponsored to exempt inspections of alarm systems, Idaho law had his back. By announcing his conflict, he is free to sponsor legislation that benefits his business.

Can a legislator vote for a bill that is a conflict-of-interest? Again, Crane is protected by Idaho law in voting for a bill that benefits his business as long as he announces he has a conflict. The law states his “disclosure does not affect an elected public official’s authority to be counted for the purpose of determining a quorum and to debate and to vote on the matter.” As long as they announce their conflict, Idaho’s legislators can have it all. They can sponsor and vote on the legislation that is the subject of the conflict of interest.

Republicans do a ceremonial dance in support of small business as they campaign for office, but I doubt voters expect them to be fronting for their own businesses, trades or professions by relying on a law written by the very legislators who are subject to it.

Legislators get one more assist by the Idaho Ethics in Government Act. It makes conflicts of interest by legislators disappear before their very eyes. According to the statute, a conflict of interest is not a conflict of interest if it falls under certain exemptions. For example, “any interest which the person has by virtue of his profession, trade or occupation where his interest would be affected to the same degree as that of a substantial group or class of others similarly engaged in the profession, trade or occupation” is not considered a conflict of interest.

Voila! Who said there was a conflict even though that’s exactly how so many conflicts occur, by a member sponsoring or voting for a bill that benefits him/her and all who work in the same profession, trade or occupation?

Rep. Greg Ferch, R-Meridian, offers yet another example of a legislator turning a blind eye to his conflict and using Idaho’s conflict of interest legislation to work in his favor and against the interest of renters struggling to pay the bills in the midst of a pandemic.

In this case, Ferch, a property manager, is aiming at a city of Boise ordinance capping rental application fees at $30, but his legislation also prohibits Idaho cities from “regulating rent, fees, or deposits.” With his obvious job conflict, Ferch is the last member of Idaho’s Legislature who should be introducing legislation to preempt Idaho’s cities from enacting legislation to protect landlords.

It’s hard to imagine a more appropriate time for a cap on renters’ application fees, as COVID has thrown people out of work, making it more difficult to pay the bills and just as affordable housing has become so much more difficult to find in the Treasure Valley. Now is exactly the time we need laws to protect renters from unscrupulous property managers and landlords from using fees to make a quick buck or to discourage prospective tenants from applying for an apartment.

If the proverbial man or woman on the street were asked how to write a conflict-of-interest law, it’s hard to believe it would be written as the Idaho Legislature has chosen to protect themselves from hardly any restrictions on voting or sponsoring such legislation. Legislators are elected to do the people’s business, not to sponsor or vote on legislation that benefits them personally or benefits their businesses. Idaho legislators such as Crane and Ferch abide by Idaho’s conflict of interest with a wink and a nod to their constituencies who expect them to refrain from self-serving behavior as the Idaho law encourages.

Given the lax requirements for dealing with conflicts of interest in Idaho law, it’s especially troubling that Idaho is one of only two states that does not have a financial disclosure law for its public officials. In 2018, the Legislature considered a financial disclosure bill that would have required all state, county and city elected officials and candidates for such positions to file a statement declaring their occupation and any sources of income of more than $5,000. The bill never made it out of committee.

Idaho legislators do have options when it comes to sponsoring or voting on legislation regardless of how cavalier Idaho law characterizes a conflict. If a bill before the legislature presents a conflict of interest as defined in Idaho law, the legislator simply can declare that he or she has a conflict of interest and vote present or not vote at all. And they should certainly steer clear of sponsoring legislation that presents a conflict.

Voters also have options. Watch the primary for candidates who will challenge incumbents and vote them out for their mockery of ethics in government.