A legislative ethics panel has ruled that the independent school ties of two state senators who were instrumental in crafting last year’s education reform law, Act 73, did not constitute a conflict of interest.
Geo Honigford, a member of the advocacy group Friends of Vermont Public Education, filed two complaints that targeted Sens. Scott Beck and Seth Bongartz.
Beck, a Republican and the Senate’s minority leader, is a teacher at St. Johnsbury Academy. Bongartz, a Democrat, is the chair of the Senate’s education committee and served for several years on the board of trustees for Burr and Burton Academy. Bongartz has also done consulting work for a private school in his area.
The two senators represent districts primarily served by private schools at the high school level. They have both long been proud defenders of the state’s tuitioning system, which allows families in certain communities to use state-funded vouchers at the public or private school of their choice.
Beck and Bongartz argued forcefully that their defense of independent schools during negotiations over the law wasn’t wrong, but instead precisely what their constituents would expect them to do.
Beck said in an interview Tuesday he was “not surprised” by the panel’s decision.
“These weren’t complaints that I took seriously. My job is to represent my communities. The schools in my communities, the students in my communities. And that’s what I do,” he said.
According to Senate ethics guidance, lawmakers aren’t expected to recuse themselves from legislation unless they have a “direct and immediate” interest in the matter. That’s usually been interpreted narrowly to mean that if a vote impacts a legislator and a larger group of people, that lawmaker can — and should — participate.
In her letters to Honigford, Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, who chairs the ethics panel, pointed to this guidance.
“A question is not of direct personal interest if it is not in regard to a legislator personally (such as a motion to censure the legislator), and a question is not of direct pecuniary interest if it involves a matter of general public interest,” she wrote.
When it comes to conflicts, lawmakers police themselves. The Senate Ethics Panel is composed of five senators. Its proceedings are entirely private, including the names of the lawmakers it investigates and the outcomes of its deliberations. Honigford’s complaint, and the panel’s decision, were each made public when he released them to the press. Seven Days was first to report on the panel’s decision to clear the two lawmakers.
Honigford blamed the panel’s decision on the state’s definition of what constitutes an ethical violation, and argued it was far too narrow.
“Clearly conflicts take many shapes other then (sic) direct payment,” he said.
