Posted by 
A bipartisan ethics bill that passed both houses unanimously (101-0 in the House and 30-0 in the Senate) was vetoed by Gov. Bob Riley. The bill, HB122, was sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black (D – Muscle Shoals) and would have amended the definition of a lobbyist under the Ethics Law to include persons attempting to influence the awarding of no bid contracts by the state.
From a release from Senate Democrats:
… [C]ritics of the governor’s veto said Riley’s decision to buck a unanimous Legislature on the ethics reform measure was designed to keep secret the lobbying activities of Riley’s children, Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell. “It is widely held in Montgomery that Gov. Riley’s children lobby their father on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts,” said Sen. Zeb Little (D-Cullman). “This legislation would have shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family, but Gov. Riley vetoed the bill,” said Senate Majority Leader Little.
The middle sentence (that Riley’s children lobby their father) was denied by all three parties (Gov. Bob Riley, Rob Riley, and Minda Riley Campbell) in an Associated Press article from Phillip Rawls. No response was reported to address the contention that “this legislation would have shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family.”
HB122 was a bill of interest for groups such as Alabama Arise (pdf), the Association of County Commissions of Alabama, and the League of Women Voters (where it was a “Priority Issue”).
Associated Press (Phillip Rawls):
Black, the bill’s sponsor, said he was “extremely disappointed by the governor’s decision to kill it.
“I thought this fit right in with his stance on transparency and openness in government,” he said.
…
Senate budget committee Chairman Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, recalled that when Riley first took office in 2003, he gave his department heads signs for their desks that said, “If you buy it, bid it.”
“His veto shows Gov. Riley is not serious about no-bid contracts involving his own administration. He ran on the issue and now he’s running from it,” Bedford said.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
“No response was reported to address the contention that “this legislation would have shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family.”
Can’t you read? All three deny it. What’s amazing is that Zeb Little can accuse them of lobbying without offering any proof at all. If that’s the case, I can say it is widely held in Montgomery that Zeb Little is a pipsqueek slimeball. But I’d be right.
You are mistaken, dear reader, i.e. anonymous commenter. In the article, all three deny only that the two children lobbied their father. There was no denial that the two children were involved in lobbying activities that this bill would address.
Their denial was very specific and for that reason very interesting to me.
I think the key to this veto lies in this statement from Jim Sumner:
“Jim Sumner, executive director of the State Ethics Commission, said Tuesday legislators developed the bill without consulting the commission. If they had, he said he would have explained that it was “far broader than they realized” and could have affected thousands of people doing business with the state.”
And further down in the srticle:
“Riley’s communications director, Jeff Emerson, said Black’s bill was redundant because the existing process for the Legislature’s Contract Review Committee to review state contracts calls for the disclosure of anyone lobbying on behalf of the contracts.
Sumner said that if the bill had become law, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and many others getting routine state contracts would have had to register with the Ethics Commission. Sumner estimated the impact would have been in the thousands.
“It was extremely broad,” he said.”
Here are Sumner’s comments in today’s Huntsville Times about this issue:
“James Sumner Jr., executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, agreed with the governor’s office that the bill was redundant and poorly drafted.
“‘The beginning of the story for me is that we were never asked to comment on it (the bill) or offer any advice regarding whether or not it would be useful,’ he said.”
Hey now — be honest and give the full story here. The reason the Riley children’s response is specific to the father is because Zeb Little’s accusations relate only to supposed lobbying of the Governor. Here is Little’s quote in the news release from the Democrats:
“It is widely held in Montgomery that Gov. Riley’s children lobby their father on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts,” said Sen. Zeb Little (D-Cullman).
And if you don’t like anonymous commenters, don’t offer the option.
Anonymous commenter, I have offered the full story as best as I understand it.
The first claim from the Democrats’ release related to Riley’s children is that “Riley’s decision to buck a unanimous Legislature on the ethics reform measure was designed to keep secret the lobbying activities of Riley’s children.” Period. No qualifying to that.
Now when somebody makes two or three claims, and a respondent makes a point to deny one of them, I tend to pay attention. That’s all.
Are you saying that Riley’s children do not lobby anyone on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts? If you know that to be true, I think that would be very helpful information.
But the article does not say that is true.
As for anonymous commenters, I don’t believe I have ever indicated that I don’t like them.
Susan and anonymous commenter, good quotes from Sumner and Emerson. I had seen that besides Riley there were a couple of folks in his administration on the other side of the issue from the good government groups, the unanimous House, and the unanimous Senate (including of course all the Republicans who voted on the issue in both houses) who supported it.
Sounds like it would have been helpful all around to have more dialogue in Montgomery on this issue.
It’s no secret that Rob and Minda “Uday and Qusay” are getting rich while their dad is governor. They take advantage of a loophole allowing them to not disclose their lobbying the executive branch on behalf of their clients. I guarantee that most of their legal work is from entities with interest before their dad’s administration.
Anon 8: provide that proof and you will have done something amazing. If you don’t have the proof, what do you have? Empty rhetoric.
Response to Danny from comment 7:
AP quotes both children saying the accusations by the Democrats aren’t true:
Minda Riley Campbell: “It’s absolutely untrue.”
Rob Riley: “That has never happened.”
Those denials sound across the board to me.
Anonymous in comment 10,
Antecedents of pronouns are important things.
Yes, Minda Riley Campbell says, “It’s absolutely untrue.” What is “it?” Well, immediately before, the article says, “The state Senate’s Democratic majority leader said Republican Gov. Bob Riley was trying to shield his own children [with the veto].”
So ok, she’s saying it’s not true that Riley is trying to shield his children. Turning her use of “it” into anything else is to assign it a value that the article does not. Making “it” anything else is to misread the article.
Context is important.
Sure, Rob Riley said, “That has never happened.” What is “that?” Lobbying their father. That could hardly be more clear.
I think you probably mean well, but to call those statements “across the board denials” that they lobby on behalf of those seeking no-bid state contracts feels to me almost like a willful misreading of the article.
Danny, it seems to me that you are trying to read a newspaper article as if it is a legal brief. How the article is written and what specific question from the reporter Minda Campbell answered may be two different things–neither being the result of malice on the part of Campbell or the reporter. In other words what the article said immediatly before Campbell’s statement may or may not have anything to do with the same “it” the reporter and she were referring to in their conversation when she made the statement.
I’m still a little curious as to why you are picking apart Campbell’s statement so finely when Zeb Little’s ubsubstantiated allegation is totally left unchallenged and Sumner’s opinion that it was a bad bill seems to matter little in the whole debate.
Moreover if you read Riley’s bill as opposed to the one he vetoed you will see that Riley’s the bill he vetoed doesn’t, in fact require anyone lobbying the executive branch to register as a lobbysit(which is what Riley proposed in Plan 2010 and what is contained in HB 159). The bill he vetoed (HB 122)requires anyone lobbying for a contract that doesn’t have to be let out for bids, e.g. “no bid contracts (and lists many examples).” That’s not the same thing. I suspect that is why Sumner thinks the bill that was passed was poorly written and overly broad. It hits the engineers and architects and other personal services contracts, yet exempts anyone seeking to influence a contract that is let out for bid (and there’s plenty of ways influence can be brought to bear on the bid process. I have worked with both bids and RFP’s and people try to influce how they are written, they try to get their competitors disqualified, you name it. Not that they succeed, but some of these companies will try anything to get the state’s business. Riley’s bill is the only one that would make no distinction between those that seek to influence the bid process and and those that seek to influence RFPs. I don’t think most of the personal services contracts really need to be in the same category, but that can be debated.
Susan, Danny is a Democrat, which is why he give Zeb Little a free pass.
[...] Both Doc and Dan believe it isn’t right. I am certainly in favor of this type of ban and I certainly think it should include the Governor’s children, if appropriate, but they need to tighten up the language next time around. Posted Alabama Politics on Thursday, June 21st, 2007. [...]
Susan,
I really only had two points.
1) I found it interesting that Riley vetoed some legislation that so many people supported, including every legislator who voted and several good government groups.
2) In my reading of the article, I did not see that any of the Rileys refuted Little’s statement, “This legislation would have shined the light of day on the lobbying activities of the governor’s family.” It may be true that the Riley children do not lobby on behalf of those seeking no-bid contracts, but I did not see that in the article.
That’s all I had to say about it, and I’m surprised this has generated so many comments.
I have no interest in parsing a newspaper article like it’s Scripture or a legal brief, but I apparently needed to defend what I read in the article to somebody whose first comment to me was, “Can’t you read?” I agree with you that the comments could have meant something else other than what is indicated in the article, but all I have to go on is what is in the article.
Little said, “It is widely held in Montgomery that Gov. Riley’s children lobby their father on behalf of entities desiring no-bid state contracts.” So he said there was a widespread rumor. I suspect there is. I have heard parts of that rumor myself.
Your concern is that the rumor is not true. You might be right. The bill would have allowed the question to be answered. (Though that is not a good reason, imo, to pass the bill. The bill is good or bad on its own regardless of whether the Riley children are affected.)
I appreciate Sumner’s comments and didn’t think they were unimportant. I also am not surprised that Riley has allies in his administration who agree with him. I have merely pointed out that a lot of people that I think are also worthy of some respect liked the bill. As I said at the end of comment 7 and as The Huntsville Times said today, I think a lot more commmunication from all sides would have been healthy and helpful.
Anonymous Commenter #13,
I reject your idea that I or anyone else should get a pass on being objective because of partisan politics. I have praised and been critical of the actions of Democrats and Republicans. If am not being fair or objective, then I deserve to be and want to be called on it.
Danny,
Riley’s bill covered anyone who lobbies someone in the Executive branch. That would presumably cover even his children or his wife for that matter. The two bills do two different things. I still think that the Democrats are so desparate to get the spotlight off their own ethical lapses (Siegelman, Worley, Melton, Guin–heck entire two year college mess)that they aren’t above floating any rumors about any Republican.
BTW–Sumner is not a member of Riley’s administration. Sumner serves at the pleasure of the Commission and was hired for the position in 1997.
what “good government groups” have come out in favor of this bill? Haven’t heard of a single one.
Susan,
Riley’s bill may be far superior to the bill he vetoed. I have not argued against it. Thanks for the good info on Sumner.
Anonymous Commenter #17,
As I already said in the post above, groups that try to promote good government that were in favor of this bill include the League of Women Voters and Alabama Arise. The Association of County Commissions of Alabama also noted it as a “bill of interest.” You may or may not consider that being in favor of the bill, and you may or may not consider them a “good government” group.
I will resist with great effort putting to you the question that was put to me in the first comment.
That Mike Hubbard sure is a dumbass, voting for such a lousy bill! Can’t he read???
FYI–Today’s Tuscaloosa and Decatur papers supported the Governor’s veto of this bill.
I saw that in our Daily News Digest this morning, Susan. It’s a shame that this bill born in part out of poor communication all around is the best ethics bill the legislature could pass this session.