Financial disclosure forms filed by state officials this week show how Pennsylvania is behind the pack, when it comes to restrictions on gifts and perks lawmakers receive.
There’s no limit on the amount of gifts and travel perks Pennsylvania officials can receive. They just need to report presents worth more than $250, and disclose cumulative travel, lodging and meals costs once they exceed $650. That means it was perfectly fine for House Speaker Sam Smith to accept more $1,000 in meals from Harrisburg lobbying firm Greenlee Partners, to name one of many disclosures from legislative leaders.
Peggy Kerns, the director of the National Conference of State Legislators’ Center for Ethics in Government, said more states are toughening their ethics laws, with ten now banning gifts altogether. “It’s really to put this strong line of demarcation between the making of public policy, and the influencing of public policy,” she said. “And it’s really geared toward the public perception. … These states that pass these strict laws are really trying to say to the public, we’re not influenced by them. And we want to make sure that you know we’re not influenced by sitting in the skybox of some professional football game, or going on a trip or outing, or repeatedly having nice dinners bought by lobbyists.”
Kerns, who spent eight years in the Colorado House of Representatives, added, “I don’t know any legislator who could be bought for a steak dinner, or anything like that. However, that’s almost beside the point, because the public looks upon, sometimes, the perks that lawmakers get as meant to influence them.”
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi took a 2,147 dollar trip to Ireland with the State Legislative Leaders Foundation. Governor Corbett received a 530 dollar trophy from the Pittsburgh Penguins, to mark the opening of their new arena. He also accepted a $275 “welcome basket” from the Republican Governors Association, including a tie and cuff links. Governor Rendell may not have worked for NBC News yet in 2010, but he racked up more than $2,000 in hotel room bills while appearing on Meet the Press and Morning Joe.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Bioethics Might Take Medical Ethics' Place
Dr. Edmund Pellegrino says that medical ethicist and bioethics should be working together for the good of patients. Dr. Pellegrino, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and medical Ethics at the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, spoke at Duquesne University about medical ethics' relationship with bioethics. Medical ethics is the system of ethics that is applied to physicians and patient care, while bioethics is interdisciplinary and focus on the question that arise from bio-science.
Pellegrino says that bioethics was formed out of three main events, the first being the cultural shift that began in the 1960s away from previously trusted authority figures. He says that this distrust that happened around the time of the Watergate scandal caused the second event, a mistrust of physicians and medical ethics.
The third event was an acceptance of multiculturalism. "And that's all fine, but then again it began to confuse one cultural set of values with the right rules and this fed into the idea of individual determination. 'What's right and wrong is what I say it is, what I say it is, what I believe. And don't tell me anything different and don't argue with me."
Dr. Pellegrino stresses that instead of just accepting the values that one already has, there needs to be discourse and public examination of whether those are right or not. He says that without examination of whether things are actually beneficial to society or a patient there can be no true progress.
Pellegrino says that he sees two possible futures for bioethics. One is where bioethics take the place of Medical ethics. "No matter how highly organized we can be, not matter how technical we can be, how scientific we can be. The human condition of being will and wanting to be helped, cured if possible, at least relieved of pain and suffering will be universal. Don't leave that to this vague notion of bioethics. I'm asking you to leave it to physicians."
The second future would be one which he most likes, one where bioethics and medical ethics can work together. He says that the aim of both types needs to be figuring out how to best look at the human condition of being ill and working in the best interest of people.
Pellegrino says that bioethics was formed out of three main events, the first being the cultural shift that began in the 1960s away from previously trusted authority figures. He says that this distrust that happened around the time of the Watergate scandal caused the second event, a mistrust of physicians and medical ethics.
The third event was an acceptance of multiculturalism. "And that's all fine, but then again it began to confuse one cultural set of values with the right rules and this fed into the idea of individual determination. 'What's right and wrong is what I say it is, what I say it is, what I believe. And don't tell me anything different and don't argue with me."
Dr. Pellegrino stresses that instead of just accepting the values that one already has, there needs to be discourse and public examination of whether those are right or not. He says that without examination of whether things are actually beneficial to society or a patient there can be no true progress.
Pellegrino says that he sees two possible futures for bioethics. One is where bioethics take the place of Medical ethics. "No matter how highly organized we can be, not matter how technical we can be, how scientific we can be. The human condition of being will and wanting to be helped, cured if possible, at least relieved of pain and suffering will be universal. Don't leave that to this vague notion of bioethics. I'm asking you to leave it to physicians."
The second future would be one which he most likes, one where bioethics and medical ethics can work together. He says that the aim of both types needs to be figuring out how to best look at the human condition of being ill and working in the best interest of people.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Scarnatti Ripped For Free Super Bowl Trip
Government reform advocates say Super Bowl perks enjoyed by top Pennsylvania lawmakers expose shortcomings in the state’s ethics laws.
Natural gas drilling company Consol Energy footed the bill for Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati’s trip to the Super Bowl, according to a story first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Republican has since said he’ll reimburse the company.Other lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, attended the big game as a guest of the Steelers.Barry Kauffman of Common Cause Pennsylvania says the situation shows a disparity between Pennsylvania and other states.
"This situation would appear to be illegal in about 35 – or perhaps even more – states, based on their bans or limits on gifts."
In fact, former New York Governor David Paterson was fined more than 60-thousand dollars last year for soliciting and accepting free 2009 World Series tickets from the Yankees.
That wouldn’t be a problem in Pennsylvania, according to Kauffman.
"There are no limits in Pennsylvania on gifts whatsoever, unless they’re flat-out bribery or something like that."
Pennsylvania law does require lobbyists and lawmakers to disclose physical gifts of more than 250 dollars, and travel and entertainment perks that exceed 650 dollars a year.
Natural gas drilling company Consol Energy footed the bill for Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati’s trip to the Super Bowl, according to a story first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Republican has since said he’ll reimburse the company.Other lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, attended the big game as a guest of the Steelers.Barry Kauffman of Common Cause Pennsylvania says the situation shows a disparity between Pennsylvania and other states.
"This situation would appear to be illegal in about 35 – or perhaps even more – states, based on their bans or limits on gifts."
In fact, former New York Governor David Paterson was fined more than 60-thousand dollars last year for soliciting and accepting free 2009 World Series tickets from the Yankees.
That wouldn’t be a problem in Pennsylvania, according to Kauffman.
"There are no limits in Pennsylvania on gifts whatsoever, unless they’re flat-out bribery or something like that."
Pennsylvania law does require lobbyists and lawmakers to disclose physical gifts of more than 250 dollars, and travel and entertainment perks that exceed 650 dollars a year.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
House Reform Debate Shows Progress
The Pennsylvania State House is moving on, after a messy dispute over voting rules. On Monday, the House approved five reform bills, setting the measures up for final passage next week. The vast majority of the afternoon’s debate was civil and low-key – a far cry from the screaming and hyperbole that dominated Wednesday’s Rules Committee meeting. Republican leaders did not call a vote on a resolution restricting members’ ability to amend measures on the floor, and stripping a Democrat from each House committee. When asked whether Republicans will press forward with the rules change, Majority Leader Mike Turzai of McCandless was eager to shift the topic to the bills the House approved on second consideration. “Look, the package that is going to get voted on next Monday – and we’re back on course – is probably the most substantive reform package that has been put together as a group since the Thornburgh Administration,” he said. The measures increase penalties for lobbyists who break rules, expand “Right to Know” governing state contracts with private companies, and bar lawmakers from operating non-profit organizations that receive tax dollars, among other changes. A Democratic spokesman says he’s worried Republicans will keep the rules change on the table as a “potential weapon” to use against the minority party in the future, if Democrats try to slow down the legislative process.
Turzai kept shifting the topic back to the reform bills, each time reporters asked whether the rules changes – House Resolution 6 – had been tabled for good. Several times during the afternoon’s debate, Allegheny County Democrats offered amendments expanding the measures to include the domestic partners of the lobbyists or state employees impacted by the changes. Every time, Republicans voted down the proposals as not germane to the bill at hand. State Rep. Dan Frankel of Lawrenceville said the House was “burying its head in the sand.” “We live in a world where people live together in domestic partnerships,” he said. “Long-term, interdependent, financially interdependent, emotionally interdependent relationships. 270,000 Pennsylvanians live this way.” After the debate, Turzai said he’d be happy to take a look at the potential loopholes, but in separate bills. “if [Democrats] feel that it’s applicable, then you can introduce a bill and make their case,” he said, arguing language like that needed to be vetted in committee, and not offered on the floor at the last minute.
Turzai kept shifting the topic back to the reform bills, each time reporters asked whether the rules changes – House Resolution 6 – had been tabled for good. Several times during the afternoon’s debate, Allegheny County Democrats offered amendments expanding the measures to include the domestic partners of the lobbyists or state employees impacted by the changes. Every time, Republicans voted down the proposals as not germane to the bill at hand. State Rep. Dan Frankel of Lawrenceville said the House was “burying its head in the sand.” “We live in a world where people live together in domestic partnerships,” he said. “Long-term, interdependent, financially interdependent, emotionally interdependent relationships. 270,000 Pennsylvanians live this way.” After the debate, Turzai said he’d be happy to take a look at the potential loopholes, but in separate bills. “if [Democrats] feel that it’s applicable, then you can introduce a bill and make their case,” he said, arguing language like that needed to be vetted in committee, and not offered on the floor at the last minute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)