EDITORIAL: Bipartisanship vital in quest for higher ethics

”Any involvement in the decision-making process, whether in public debate or private discussions with fellow elected officials, presented an irreconcilable conflict. Turner should have recused himself entirely in the matter in any way given the personal financial stake involved.”

And was it a Republican or Democrat who said this about a rule in the Indiana House that is to govern legislators’ self-interests?

”This rule forbids speaking and voting on matters of serious personal financial interest. It should be expanded to expressly forbid any legislative activity on a matter seriously affecting oneself, including lobbying one’s fellow members.”

Maybe it’s a good thing if you can’t tell the political party of the persons being quoted, for maybe that suggests there is a bipartisan agreement that Turner’s excesses — and others like them — cannot be accepted if the Indiana Legislature is to have any claim to integrity.

The Legislature’s leading Republican, House Speaker Brian Bosma, made the first statement late last month when he removed Turner, a Republican from Cicero, from the speaker pro tempore position. A well-respected Democratic legislator, Ed DeLaney, made the second comment last week as he called for fellow lawmakers to enact a “Turner Rule,” which would bar them from “any legislative activity” on issues in which they have money at stake.

Let’s hope those statements indicate common ground.

But politics always muddies topics that look so clear in their solution. That is especially so in the Indiana Statehouse where GOP possession of the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature grants a Republican monopoly on ideas and actions. Democrats are nearly powerless and flail back by sniping snidely at Republicans — and that happens far too often on this and other issues. DeLaney’s suggestion avoids that silliness.

Neither rough-housing nor sniping will contribute to a better ethics bill. Ethics are so essentially vital to the public’s confidence in the work of the Legislature that politics as usual should not prevail. Both sides need to put down their weapons and tread into that common ground. 

Nor should the process be entirely insular. Can House members (or their colleagues in the Senate) really apply ethical rules to themselves? A committee of House (Senate) members is just too beholding to lobbyists and donors to do this serious work without blinders.

A better solution would be a bipartisan ethics panel such as the House used last spring to investigate Turner’s actions. That six-member panel — three Republicans, three Democrats — concluded that Turner didn’t break the letter of legislative rules, but everyone except Turner himself acknowledges that it was only because of loopholes. Now a similar panel could find ways to plug those loopholes.

As for Turner, he has proved himself nothing but arrogant and oblivious. He brazenly declared exoneration last spring when the committee found him, technically, not guilty. Little more than a week ago, he announced he will resign from office if he is re-elected on Nov. 4  — even though he told The Indianapolis Star he’d been thinking about not seeking re-election since May. Had he acted earlier, the GOP could have picked a replacement candidate for the ballot, which would have allowed Republicans to know for whom they are voting and Democrats to know who they are opposing. Turner’s is a cynical calculation, after which he will slink off to Georgia to work at a church training camp.

Bosma has promised a comprehensive ethics bill during the next legislative session, and as we stated early in the month, we’re glad to see that happen — for, as he has said, “Our greatest concern must be the confidence of the public in their elected officials.”

To make the pledge real, Bosma, other Republicans and Democrats must rise above politics — as idealistic as that sounds — and plow new ethical ground.