What happened to ethics reform?

Two regular legislative sessions have come and gone since Gregg Renkes resigned amid an ethics scandal brought about by a conflict of interest that put the former attorney general in position to profit personally from business he was conducting for the state.

There was much talk at the time about the need to clarify and tighten the vague ethics legislation on the books. Yet more than two years later, nothing has changed.

Despite cries for serious ethics reform from the public and most candidates for governor, all the hand-wringing over the Renkes affair has proven to be little more than political posturing. Majority lawmakers seem more interested in protecting their political turf than in doing what's right for the people of Alaska.

While mere lip service continues to be paid to ethics reform in Juneau, Senate President Ben Stevens, no stranger to ethics controversies, once again faces questions about his own conflicts of interest. The Anchorage lawmaker, who has battled a recall effort over previous disclosure improprieties, recently was discovered to be receiving remuneration for his service on the board of directors of Semco, the parent company of Enstar.

Despite the fact that the compensation paid to Stevens by Semco is nearly triple his legislative salary - which itself represents less than 10 percent of all personal income reported by Stevens - the senator and his apologists in the majority insist everything is on the level and that his legislative service is for the people of Alaska, not his corporate sugar daddies.

But lawmakers who defend Stevens are dangerously out of touch. It is difficult not to feel like they are taking Alaskans for fools.

This is not to suggest that lawmakers be denied the right to make a living. But that right does not extend to exploiting their positions for personal gain - or even appearing to do so.

This is the message the majority party seems unable to comprehend - or unwilling to accept. Sure, strictly speaking, Stevens may be operating within the law. But people still have a right - and, indeed, a duty - to wonder where the senator's true loyalties lie, just as they did with Renkes and Sen. Scott Ogan before him.

In a January editorial, we wondered how serious lawmakers would prove to be about enacting meaningful ethics reform this session. If their inaction five months later isn't answer enough, on the page opposite this one are the thoughts of the Valley delegation - those who thought it important enough to respond - and candidates for governor about the current business with Sen. Stevens.

It should not be surprising that most of those presently &#8220on the inside” tend to frame the debate to suit their purpose, giving mostly vague and indirect replies to a very specific question. In contrast, those presently challenging the status quo seem to have a clearer understanding of the growing public uneasiness with the way the people's business is conducted in Juneau. For daring to shine a light on it, two of those challengers - Republicans Sarah Palin and Andrew Halcro - have been made pariahs by their party.

Is it any wonder, then, that voters feel increasingly alienated from and cynical about their government?

It is long past time for the majority party to show some responsibility and take a definitive stand for good behavior. As the campaign season gears up for the final push to election day, voters should demand nothing less.