Bob Riley let a Sunday deadline slip by without signing an ethics bill that had passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, effectively killing it. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black (D-Muscle Shoals) would have expanded the definition of lobbyists who were required to register with the State Ethics Commission to include those who attempt to influence the awarding of state contracts that don’t require competitive bidding.
Democratic leaders are accusing Riley of vetoing the bill in order to shield his own children, who are rumored to lobby him on behalf of entities looking to secure no-bid contracts. The governor’s office says the bill is redundant, while Jim Sumner, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, says it is too broad and would potentially effect thousands of additional people. They can’t both be right.
Interesting. If the much-talked-about special session for ethics reform actually takes place, will this bill come up again? Communications Director Jeff Emerson says the bill was nothing but political grandstanding “to give these senators the appearance of being in favor of some type of reform, when the truth is they killed every single one of Governor Riley’s ethics reform bills.” Is he referring to all the Republican senators who voted yes along with their Democratic colleagues (vote total 30-0)? Or the Republicans in the House who did the same (vote total 101-0)? And how will comments like this encourage the legislature to continue working toward comprehensive reform?
BTW, that unanimous House vote took place on March 15. Did Riley speak up and criticize it as either redundant or too broad — take your pick — then? Did he tell legislators that he’d veto it if it came to his desk in that form? If he did, maybe they should have taken it back and tinkered with it. If he didn’t, then he has no business vetoing it now.
More as it develops…
UPDATE: The Huntsville Times has more extensive coverage. I wondered above if Riley had approached the legislature about his concerns before now. Here’s what Rep. Black, the bill’s sponsor, says:
Black said Tuesday he was “surprised and disappointed” by Riley’s actions. He said the governor’s staff had not spoken with him about the bill since early in the legislative session.
Black, who is a lawyer and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said a member of Riley’s staff met with him shortly after he introduced the bill on the first day of the session.
“”He (staffer) indicated to me that he thought it was a good idea, but he thought it might be covered in the governor’s ethics package,” said Black.
Disagreeing that the proposed law was redundant, Black said, “I don’t think you’ll find it in the law.” He said he planned to reintroduce it in 2008.
I didn’t make it clear in this post, but those of you who are regular readers know that in general, I like Bob Riley. And it’s pretty funny to hear people like pork king Roger Bedford, who’s also quoted in the article, lecturing Riley on ethics. I just don’t understand why Riley is going after those in his own party who supported the bill when he didn’t bother to question it earlier.
As much as I admire Riley for his stance on Amendment One, I am really disappointed on this one. I’m glad I voted for Loretta.
[...] I agree with Kathy that the Governor’s Communication Director is wrong to accuse the entire legislature of [...]
Let’s see: Zeb Little gets to say, without offering any proof at all, that the Governor’s children are lobbying, but you give him a free pass? Read the Huntsville Times article on this issue. Jim Sumner says the bill is unnecessary, redundant and poorly drafted. His words.
I read the article in this morning’s newspaper and my first thought was that Riley was whining because HIS proposal was not the one that got passed. Seems a little petty to me – kill all ethics reform because they didn’t vote in your proposal.
joe, I’m not giving Zeb Little a free pass. I summarized what was in the article that I linked. I honestly don’t know if the bill is a good one or not; I just think the two criticisms cited sound contradictory. And while I’m not surprised that there is partisan posturing going on, I am surprised that Riley appears to be attacking the Republicans who voted for the bill.
And I see in the Huntsville Times article that Rep. Black, the bill’s sponsor, says he hasn’t heard anything from the governor’s office about the bill since he got generally positive feedback early in the session. Again, I ask why Riley’s office didn’t question the bill much earlier, given its level of support.
Don’t be so naive as to think these guys read the bills before voting on them. They ask, “What does this do?” And the sponsor of the bill says something like, “It’s about ethics.” “Oh, OK then, I’ll vote for it.”
Perhaps these two statements from Jim Sumner will shed a little light on the reason why this bill was vetoed:
“Jim Sumner, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, said Tuesday legislators developed the bill without consulting the commission. If they had, he said he would have explained that it was “far broader than they realized” and could have affected thousands of people doing business with the state.”
and. . .
“Sumner said that if the bill had become law, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and many others getting routine state contracts would have had to register with the Ethics Commission. Sumner estimated the impact would have been in the thousands.
“It was extremely broad,” he said.”
Also, here are Sumner’s comments in today’s Huntsville Times about this issue:
“James Sumner Jr., executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, agreed with the governor’s office that the bill was redundant and poorly drafted.
“‘The beginning of the story for me is that we were never asked to comment on it (the bill) or offer any advice regarding whether or not it would be useful,’ he said.”
Dan pointed me to the fact that Riley’s own 2010 Plan proposes to “fully disclose lobbyist spending to provide greater transparency to the public”, and states “I will once again ask the legislature to pass a law to require individuals who lobby the Executive Branch to register with the Ethics Commission”. Rep. Black alluded to this in his statements quoted in my post.
The governor’s own statements certainly imply that current law doesn’t require such disclosure and registration. And I just received a press release from his office that again trashes the legislature for failing to pass any ethics reform, ignoring the fact that the legislature voted overwhelmingly for a bill that addresses the very issue he claimed was so important.
So again I ask, why didn’t Riley speak up about his big problem with this bill back when it unanimously passed the House? I really want to know the answer; his lashing out at the entire legislature now seems like an over-the-top reaction from someone who is usually a reasonable guy. (If he’s angry because he believes his family was unfairly maligned, I understand that completely, but his response doesn’t appear to be aimed at Zeb Little.)
two different bills: Governor’s Plan 2010 bill is HB 159, not the one he vetoed.
joe, HB159 appears to be even broader than the bill that Riley vetoed, requiring anyone who lobbies the executive branch to register with the ethics commission, not just those who are lobbying in re: no-bid contracts. Looks like the legislature didn’t go as far as the governor wanted. Maybe I’m missing something here, but the veto still looks like sour grapes to me. And I expect better of Riley.