Conflicts of Interests Acts, State & Local Government & General Assembly, etc.; lobbyist reporting. (SB692)

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

Del. Randy Minchew (R-Leesburg): THIS SESSION TO LAST YEAR'S ETHICS BILL THROUGH BILLS CARRIED THIS SESSION BY DELEGATES GILBERT AND McCLELLAN AND PASSED ON FEBRUARY 16TH. THIS IS BEFORE YOU WITH SUPPORT AND VOTE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND I MOVE THE BILL PASS.

[Unknown]: CONTINUING WITH THE BLOCK, SENATE BILL 701 TO AMEND AND REACT RELATED TO HTC OIL, PERMITTING PROCESSORS TO MANUFACTURE AND PROVIDE. WITH A SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM ALBEMARLE MR. BELL.

Del. Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville): MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THE

---

[Unknown]: AND ASK THAT THE BILL PASS. THANK YOU.

Sen. Jeremy McPike (D-Dale City): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 38, NOS 0. AYES 38, NOS 0. THE SENATE CONCURS WITH THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE. SENATE BILL 691, PASSED THE WHITE HOUSE A SUBSTITUTE. THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE CONQUUR WITH THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE WITH AN EMFAT STICK RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DECLINE THAT INVITATION. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE ETHICS BILL. THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES HAD A FORM OF THE ETHICS BILL AND THE SENATE HAD A FORM OF THE ETHICS BILL AND THERE'S SOME FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES THAT I AM OPTIMISTIC WE CAN RECONCILE IN CONFERENCE. SOME OF THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES THAT UNDER THE SENATE BILL WE HAD THE DE MINIMUS REPORTING AMOUNT WHICH WAS $20 OR LESS AND YOU DID NOT HAVE TO AGGREGATE THE $20 AND THEN REPORT IT WHEN IT REACHED A CERTAIN LEVEL. THERE WERE ISSUES DEALING WITH GIFTS AND TRAVEL TO LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. ONE OF THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL, AT LEAST IN THE EYES OF THE FOURTH ESTATE, WAS INCREASING THE REPORTING THRESHOLD FROM 50 TO $100. I GUESS THEY FIGURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO MISBEHAVE FOR $50, BUT WE WILL FOR WITH $100. THERE WERE SOME PROVISIONS FOR THE SENATE -- EXCUSE ME, THE LEGISLATORS ONLY FILING ONCE A YEAR WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL FILING AFTER THE SESSION, ONLY REPORTING ANY GIFTS AS OPPOSED TO FILING TWICE A YEAR. THE PROVISION IN OUR BILL WAS FOR THE LOBBY AND INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE TO ONLY FILE ONCE. IN THE HOUSE BILL, THERE WAS A PROVISION RELATING TO BOTH FORMAL AND INFORMAL ETHICS OPINIONS THAT COME FROM THE COMMISSION, THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM FOIA, SO I CAN IMAGINE THAT THAT'S PROBABLY EMBRACED VERY COMFORTABLY BY SOME OF OUR OBSERVERS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, BUT I AM OPTIMISTIC WE CAN RECONCILE IT AND IMPROVE SOME OF THOSE UNINTENTIONAL SPEED BUMPS THAT WERE INCORPORATED IN THE BILL LAST YEAR AS WE WERE PUT UNDER THE GUN ON THE LAST DAY TO COME OUT WITH SOMETHING. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE NOT CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE REJECTED, THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE CONCUR WITH THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE?

---

Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock): GOING TO LOVE THIS ONE. THE PRESS IS ALL OVER IT. NO, MR. SPEAKER, THERE'S A CLAUSE AT THE END THAT I FAILED TO MENTION. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THE JUDICIARY WAS BEING IMPACTED IN A STRANGE WAY BY THE ETHICS LEGISLATION WE PASSED, AND SO THERE WERE JUDGES THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO ATTEND CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO ALL WE DID AT THE END IN THE CLAUSE IS HAVE THE SUPREME COURT REPORT TO THE ETHICS COUNCIL WHAT, IF ANY, CONCERNS THE JUDICIARY HAS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, SO IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS POSSESSED TO TELL US WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, AND SO I APOLOGIZE TO THE BODY FOR NOT MENTIONING THAT EARLIER. THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE. OTHERWISE, IT'S THE SAME AS THE BILL WE JUST PASSED AND I MOVE WE ADOPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE SENATE BILL.

---

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM J AMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I AM RESPECTFULLY GOING TO MOVE THAT REREJECT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 692 AND SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION, SIR.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): SENATE BILL 692 IS THE SECOND VERSION OF ETHICS REFORM WE BEGAN TO UNDERTAKE IN 2015. THIS YEAR AFTER SOME CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AMONGST VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES WE CAME UP WITH SENATE BILL 692 WHICH WAS PASSED BY THIS BODY AND ALSO THE COMPANION BILL THROUGH THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSED A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND TWO THAT ARE MORE CONTROVERSIAL IN THE MINDS OF SOME THAN OTHERS. YOU WILL RECALL IN THE ORIGINAL BILL OF 692 THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT LOBBYISTS DID NOT HAVE TO TRACK OR AGGREGATE ANY GIFTS WHICH INCLUDED FOODS OR BEVERAGE UNDER $20 AND THAT WAS DONE IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGGRAVATION OF TRYING TO TRACK EVERY BIG MAC. THE GOVERNOR MADE TWO PROPROSED CHANGES ON THAT ONE. HE INCREASED IT TO $25 AS OPPOSED TO $20 AND SECONDLY INDICATED THAT THAT AGGREGATION NO LONGER EXEMPTED FOOD OR BEVERAGES. SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE REJECT THAT AMENDMENT. THERE WAS ALSO WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS BILL SPLITTING ON IT. THE GOVERNOR MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL THAT SAYS THAT LOBBYISTS CANNOT SPLIT IS BILL TRANSLATED IN THAT IF FIVE LOBBYISTS TOOK THE TWO OF US TO DINNER THAT EACH OF THOSE FIVE LOBBYISTS WOULD HAVE TO REPORT THE TOTAL BILL FIVE TIMES AS OPPOSED TO BEING ABLE TO APPORTION IT AMONGST THE LEGISLATORS OR APPORTION IT AMONGST THAT WHICH THEY PAID BY FIVE OF THEM. SO CONSEQUENTLY WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IS A REPORTING BY BOTH THE LEGISLATOR AND THE LOBBYISTS AND I WOULD SUGGEST, TOO, I DON'T THINK IT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM IN SPLITTING THE BILL AMONGST THE NUMBER OF LOBBYISTS. A LESS CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSAL WHICH IS A LITTLE PERPLEXING TO ME. s. YOU WILL RECALL THAT YOU COULD MAKE APPLICATION TO THE SENATE REPORT HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE FOR PREAPPROVED TRAVEL TO VARIOUS CONVENTIONS OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS TAKING PLACE. YOU CAN STILL DO THAT BUT UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE APPROVAL YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE WHICH WOULD THEN IMMEDIATELY POST IT ON THEIR WEBSITE. A COUPLE OF REFLEXES ON THAT. -- REFLECTIONS ON THAT. FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE SOME GROUPS THAT I THINK SPONSOR CONVENTIONS AND CONFERENCES THAT TILT MORE TOWARDS MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS AND SOME THAT TILTT MORE TOWARDS MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS AND I SEE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOT YOU THERE. ALSO, IT DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE THE FACT THAT ONCE IT IS POSTED WITHIN TWO WEEKS UPON APPROVAL THAT IF IN FACT YOU DO NOT ATTEND THAT IT IS REMAINED POSTED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. I WOULD CERTAINLY SAY THAT THE GOVERNOR MADE SOME OTHER CHANGES AND THEY INVOLVE THE REPORTING PERIOD OF TIME. YOU RECALL THAT IN THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT WE HAD A PROVISION THAT LEGISLATORS BY MAY HAD TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON ANY GIFTS THAT THEY RECEIVED WHICH WERE REPORTABLE. ON THAT, THE GOVERNOR HAS CHANGED THE REPORTING PERIOD OF TIME TO JULY 1 AND JULY 31 AS OPPOSED TO JANUARY 1 AND DECEMBER 15 AND I THINK THAT IS UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. SO I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE ARE NECESSARILY IDELOGICALLY BASED. I THINK THEY ARE MORE ADMINISTRATIVELY BASED AND ALL OF YOU HEARD ME EXTOLL MY COMMENTS ABOUT ETHICS REFORM AND I WILL SPARE YOU THAT AGAIN TODAY BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE REJECT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENTS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR BARKER.

Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria): I RISE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS AUTHORED BY THE GOVERNOR. THERE ARE A LOT OF AMENDMENTS I THINK THERE ARE 48 AMENDMENTS BUT IN REALITY THEY FALL INTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE IS THE BILL SPLITTING ONE HE TALKED WHICH IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE IF SOMEONE RECEIVES A GIFT OF $100 WHETHER IT IS DONE BY ONE ENTITY OR TWO, THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE AS HE SAVE AN EXAMPLE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTED IN THAT SITUATION. THE SECOND IS TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE FOR DE MINIMUS GIFTS. IT DOES PROPOSE INCREASING THE REPORTING THRESHOLD FOR DE MINIMUS GIFTS FROM 20 TO 25. BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE KEEPING OF RECORDS FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE OF LESS THAN $25 SO THAT IF IT AGGREGATED TO AN AMOUNT THAT JUSTIFIED DISCLOSURE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED. TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO NOT REPORT SOMETHING THAT AMOUNTS TO MORE THAN $100 JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DOEN IN SMALL INCREMENTS AND THE THIRD IS WITH THE CALENDAR ISSUE AND IN YEARS IN WHICH A BODY IS NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION WOULD REDUCE FROM TWO TIMES ARTING REG DOWN TO ONE. MAKES IT CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL YEARS THAT WE HAVE AND THE FINAL ONE, THE FINAL CATEGORY THERE IS THE TRAVEL REQUEST INSURES THAT WHEN A TRAVEL -- ENSURES WHEN A TRAVEL REQUEST IS MADE THAT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE REASONABLE MODEST STEPS IN FURTHERING THE ETHICS STANDARDS HERE. I DON'T THINK ANY ONE OF THEM IS A HUGE ISSUE HERE AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD BE THE PLEASURE OF THE BODY TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY BE REJECTED THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria): AYES 14, NOS 24.

[Unknown]: AYES 14, NOS 24. THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REJECTED.

---