BusinessReport.com

Now that the Legislature has passed the major parts of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s ethics agenda, thus raising the state’s national rankings in that area, we can expect the outside world, particularly businesses looking to relocate, to marvel at Louisiana’s shining new light and to come flocking.

Of course they won’t, not in the short term, nor perhaps ever if the state doesn’t vastly improve its public education, skilled work force and tax structure.

Yet the governor and Legislature deserve credit for achieving what their predecessors barely attempted or desired. Lawmakers didn’t pass all the proposals the governor asked for and changed those it did quite a lot. But they accomplished the big stuff in the areas of income disclosure, conflicts of interest, lobbyist regulation and, more or less, restrictions on the perks of office.

If the goal of this session was to improve perception and win points in national rankings, that was done. The governor did not “bat a thousand,” as he aimed to, but had he, it would have meant he did not ask for enough.

Jindal predicted correctly the proposals that would attract the most opposition: the inclusion of judges in the disclosure bill [the Legislature gave the Supreme Court four months to write its own rules for the judiciary] and the forfeiture of publicly paid pension benefits by convicted officeholders, which never made it out of committee.

Citizens paying attention became impatient when legislators asked a lot of questions, carved some loopholes and wiggled for room. But so would most people before they adopted sweeping new laws that would subject themselves to public sanctions and criminal penalties. Better to ask “what if” now than to be told “you should have thought of that” later.

Legislators, who are part-time government employees, opted for less stringent disclosure requirements for themselves than for the full-time governor and statewide elected officials. On the other hand, they strengthened Jindal’s original proposal by including his top staff members, who wield tremendous influence out of public view, and the most powerful boards and commissions.

On the $50 limit on meals bought for them by lobbyists, legislators closed a gaping loophole by prohibiting tab-splitting, whereby two sponsors could share paying for a legislator’s $100 meal. And they rejected a “safety valve” amendment to allow officials to cover the overage on a dinner, which would have turned the $50 limit into a $50 coupon.

They reasonably changed the free-ticket ban to prohibit receiving the more sought-after tickets pro and college games, concerts and golf outings—while allowing their free admission to community and civic events they are expected to attend, such as high school games and Chamber of Commerce banquets.

They can’t be blamed for not ending what bothers voters more: legislators’ access to purchase big-game tickets at face value. The governor did them a favor by not including that in the special session’s call.

Jindal also gave legislators a bone to chew by letting them change how the Board of Ethics works. Legislators, who have long resented that the volunteer board acts as prosecutor and judge, agreed to let administrative law judges conduct hearings on violations. Good government groups complained that the major revamp needed more time for study, but the train whistle on this bill drowned them out.

The most remarkable and rarest of the session’s moments came at its end, when conference committee meetings to iron out differences between the houses on bills were held in public. For as long as I’ve attended legislative sessions, such critical confabs, where the real action on bills often occur, have taken place at a member’s desk or in a hallway, out of the view of the public or even most members. Lawmakers frequently voted on the committee reports only to be surprised later by what was really in them.

This time, with the meetings broadcast on the Internet, members quickly resolved differences on seven bills and sent their reports to the floor, where lawmakers had a day to review them before the final votes. The process was transparency itself, and it didn’t require a law or resolution, but only the decision by leaders to do the right thing. This session showed it can happen.