NRS 281.421 and 281.501: 1. Remove the proportionality exception to Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Rationale:
Currently, the conflict of interest requirements of NRS 281.501 can be skirted when the elected official has what we might call a Aproportionality@ argument. Eliminating this kind of argument would not entirely rule out consideration of possible proportionalities, but would allow them only within the larger context of having first fully disclosed one=s commitment in a private capacity, and only then giving reasons why that should either be enough reason to abstain, or not enough to abstain.
As things are, on the one hand, under conflict of interest (281.501), if a person has such a conflict as defined, it must be disclosed in every case, but it may or may not lead to abstention from voting (and there is detail on when and how to do that, some of which we are addressing already, in our current proposals).
But on the other hand, 281.421(c)introduces (and 501 [1], [2] and [3] repeat) what we call the Aproportionality@ rule=, whereby it is OK for a legislator to take part in debate and voting if any benefit he or she may gain from it is no more than would any other member of the same class of Nevadans. For example, if the legislator were a banker and a new law would improve the business of bankers in general, including that legislator, but no moreso for this legislator-banker than for other bankers, then it is ok to go ahead and act on it. His or her gain is proportionally greater than for the rest of us, but no moreso than for other members of that peer group.
The problem is that this proportionality rule allows a person to avoid the thrust of the conflict of interest provision and skate around it, under those circumstances. The conflict of interest requirement should over-ride. A person should disclose, and then decide to abstain or not, under the rules laid out for everyone B irrespective of any real or supposed proportional benefit one might get as member of some group. Do the disclosing, give reasons for abstaining or for choosing not to, but do not take part in advancing such legislation without doing this disclosure work on the claim that you have no more than a proportional membership in the group to benefit from it.
BDR:
Delete from all descriptions and uses of what we refer to here as the proportionality rule at NRS 281.421 [c], and then at 501 (1) , (2) and (3). This will make the conflict of interest requirements for disclosure and, if warranted, abstention, in first position in every case.
