As we learned with Sen. Peter Bragdon’s recent tin-eared attempt to hang onto his Senate presidency after being picked to manage the Local Government Center’s multimillion-dollar municipal insurance risk pools, the New Hampshire Legislature’s ethics rules are more art than science. In most cases, it seems, ethics are in the eye of the beholder. That is not a good thing.

The Bragdon dustup should never have happened. It’s flat-out wrong that ethics guidelines allow the second most powerful elected state official to simultaneously serve as the leader of a quasi-governmental body that has demonstrative interest in copious pieces of legislation.

After being named to the powerful post, the Milford Republican spent several days in conflict-of-interest denial, maintaining he could impartially serve two masters whose interests often collide. Bragdon surrendered his leadership role only after a rising tide of bipartisan criticism shoved him to re-evaluate his position. He remains in the Senate, however, and people will be paying close attention to his conduct regarding legislation that could affect the LGC.

Legislative ethics surfaced as an issue again last week when the panel assigned to referee right from wrong grudgingly ruled that it’s OK for lawmakers to accept free $125 tickets to the Business and Industry Association’s annual dinner later this month at which former New Hampshire House Speaker Donna Sytek will receive a lifetime achievement award.

Lawmakers are banned from accepting gifts worth more than $25 unless they fall under at least one of 13 exceptions – including admission to ceremonial and celebratory events with more than 50 attendees.

The Legislative Ethics Committee voted 6-0 that the BIA event was celebratory and therefore off the gift-ban hook. However, the unanimous vote belies some strong concerns voiced by panel Chairman Martin Gross.

Gross rejected two of the three reasons offered by the BIA as to why its event qualified as an exemption, but found narrow comfort in the notion that the dinner is fundamentally a celebration – a definition not spelled out in the ethics rules, which left Gross to consult a dictionary for guidance.

However, some of Gross’ observations are reason for pause.

“BIA makes no secret that it is a pre-eminent lobbying organization,” Gross wrote. “Any effective lobbying effort includes cultivating cordial relationships with legislators. There is little doubt that its Annual Dinner invitations to legislators are part of that effort. If the BIA had no interest in legislation, there would be no point offering free admission to legislators. Clearly, one of the purposes of the Dinner and the free invitations is to advance BIA’s legislative agenda.”

That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the free-ticket offer, but Gross also acknowledged that, under current rules, the Legislature’s free-gift exemption “appears to be met” because, “The program appears to include no discussion of BIA’s own legislative positions or accomplishments, but more generally seeks to be ‘a celebration of business accomplishments in New Hampshire.’?”

Gross’ frequent use of the word “appears” offers further evidence of the gossamer consistency the Legislature’s ethics rules.

While it is certainly in the interest of lawmakers to keep ethics rules vague –
allowing for liberal interpretations of what they can receive as goodies from various interests – loose protocols are not in the public interest.

When the head of the Legislature’s ethics review panel is compelled to seek out a dictionary for material guidance, that’s a sign that something is amiss.

Newsletter