What is ethically right in La.?

That special session earlier this year that supposedly propelled Louisiana to the pinnacle of exemplary ethics laws has, in retrospect, proven that doing the right thing – and defining the right thing – isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Consider:

– Arguments continue in and out of the Capitol on whether some ethics changes adopted during the February session do more harm than good.

Critics of a provision pushed by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration are unhappy that the state Ethics Board is losing the power to decide whether an ethics violation has taken place.

Effective Aug. 15, administrative law judges chosen by an appointee of the governor will have that power.

Also being debated now is a February change in the standard of proof for what constitutes an ethics violation, from “reliable and substantial” evidence to a “clear and convincing” standard closer to what is used in criminal cases. Ethics Board administrator Richard Sherburne has said his office lacks resources to investigate complaints requiring that level of evidence.

An amended House bill awaiting Senate committee action would lower the standard of proof to “any substantial evidence.” But it’s not likely to go far, with opposition from Sen. Robert Kostelka, R-Monroe, a Jindal floor leader and chairman of the committee that has the bill. Kostelka, a former state judge, likes the tougher standard.

Besides, the bill is a bit of a catch-22 for those who want the easier standard of proof.

It also has language that would require the Ethics Board to provide someone who is the subject of a complaint with the name of the accuser, perhaps raising fear of retaliation and thereby stifling complaints.

– Another `”more harm than good” argument tied up the state Senate for about two hours Wednesday. The problem: expanded income disclosure requirements apparently are keeping some qualified people from volunteering for various boards and commissions. Sen. Danny Martiny had a bill that would ease some of the requirements for some of those bodies.

Martiny said he tried to be meticulous about the way he went about it, contacting colleagues ahead of the debate, inviting their suggestions on which boards should have lighter disclosure requirements and which should remain under the heavier disclosure burden. But some lawmakers preferred a scattershot approach. Sen. Joe McPherson added an amendment keeping members of any board with rule-making authority under the heavier burden. Martiny, uncertain how many boards that would affect, said he will try to get the House to strip that amendment.

– When the Legislature tightened reporting and registration requirements for lobbyists this year, it led many who are interested in state government to take a harder look at existing law defining the nature of a lobbyist.

The law is designed to make those people with the expensive suits and big expense accounts own up to how much they spend trying to influence government. But it also may have swept up a few other folks: the preacher who comes to the Capitol to speak against a gambling bill; a business owner who simply picks up the phone to ask his local legislator to vote for a tax break; or even that business owner’s secretary who places the call and delivers the message on behalf of the boss.

A bill by Sen. A.G. Crowe, passed last week in the Senate after many suggestions from diverse interests, seeks to nail down the definition of lobbyist and keep ordinary citizens from having to register with the state and pay a $110 fee just to talk to lawmakers.

Mostly absent through all of this has been Jindal, who has only acknowledged, under questioning, that there is any disagreement over the ethics measures and whose only strong statement so far has been that he will veto anything that he thinks weakens the new ethics laws.

Meanwhile, underpinning much of the debate is some not very veiled resentment.

“It’s wrong to take a lesser standard because some few board members are saying it’s too onerous. We think it’s too onerous on us, but we agreed to it,” McPherson said during Wednesday night’s debate, referring to disclosure requirements legislators imposed on themselves, and the boards, at the behest of the governor.

Martiny himself appeared less than enthusiastic about the measures, while acknowledging their popularity among voters.

“If the people could vote on whether we have cushions in our chairs, we’d all be sitting on the floor,” Martiny said.

Kevin McGill covers the Louisiana Legislature for The Associated Press.