The Daily Herald: Your town. Your neighbors. Your Newspaper. - In Our View: Ban votes on personal interests: "The larger problem is with the system itself. In Utah, an elected official can legally vote on a matter in which he has a vested interest, so long as that interest has been declared, either in writing ahead of time or at the time of the vote.

While the law creates a measure of transparency, it does not go far enough. Voting on a public matter in which one has a private financial or other interest should be prohibited. Even if an official casts a vote with the best intentions, the conflict will always taint public perception.

The best solution is one employed in other states: Bar officials from participating in debates or votes on issues in which a conflict of interest exists. This posture eliminates the conflict and allows a governing body to decide a matter as impartially as possible.

In Utah, some officials voluntarily recuse themselves from issues in which they have an interest. And at least one city, Eagle Mountain, has implemented an ethics ordinance that is more stringent than the state's law. Such acts are commendable.

It is argued, however -- unconvincingly -- that barring officials from votes or debates on issues in which they have an interest could hobble local government, especially in small communities where conflicts are almost inevitable. In such cases, the argument goes, good people may not seek public service because of personal entanglements."