CHARLESTON — It’s no deep, dark secret that your legislator owns a pivotal chunk of property to be swallowed up in a state project up for a vote in the Legislature.

All you need do is examine the annual ethics form lawmakers are required to fill out.

But what if that land, or a loan or business for that matter, is in the name of the lawmaker’s spouse?

You’re in the dark, and the vote of that delegate or senator — unethical as it may be — is free of any taint of wrongdoing, simply because nobody knows about the personal gain in the offing.

House Republicans and at least one Democrat think the rules need to change, so that spouses of lawmakers are included in detailed ethics forms.

“It shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” says House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha.

Yet, that is how it shook out four years ago when Armstead, his predecessor, former Minority Leader Charles Trump, R-Berkeley, and Delegate Kelli Sobonya, R-Cabell, wanted to change SB153 to embrace reports by spouses.

All 32 Republicans voted for the amendment, as did one Democrat — Tom Louisos of Fayette County. It failed on a 33-65 tally.

“Strong ethics and good government shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat issue,” Armstead said.

“It should be an issue we all have foremost in our minds as public officials.”

Armstead plans to pursue an amended ethics law in the 2010 session, spurred on by West Virginia’s recent poor ranking in this realm by the Center for Public Integrity.

West Virginia received an “F” from the group over its failure to require disclosure by spouses of legislators.

Of a possible 100 points, the state achieved a mere 45, giving West Virginia a ranking of 44th in the country.

Armstead acknowledged the Democrat bill in 2005 did achieve something — an improved due process of ethics complaints.

“But we had an opportunity to do more,” he said.

Specifically, the Republicans wanted spouses of lawmakers to be accountable in terms of property they own, business firms in which they control or have an interest, or any loans received or extended.

Without such a requirement, Armstead sees the potential for many such conflicts when bills hit the floors of the chambers for votes.

“If you have a spouse, for example, that works in a particular area, or owns a business and you’re up here voting on something that you would have to disclose if you owned that business. But if the spouse owns it and that being as close a relationship as it is, that may have an impact on how you vote,” the Republican leader said.

“It should be something at least you disclose so people know about it.”

This failure is one area the Center for Public Integrity cited in giving the state a failing grade, Armstead said.

The annual form required of lawmakers calls for disclosure of any sources of income exceeding $1,000, places of employment, loans that have been received or made.

Additionally, lawmakers must spell out any business interests, and any contracts held with the state.

“You can at least look at it and compare our vote and decide did we vote in some way that was a conflict of interest,” Armstead said.

“By not having spouses’ interests involved in that disclosure, the voters have no way of looking at that and seeing.”

Armstead says it’s a simple matter for lawmakers and other public officials to own a business and place it in a spouse’s name without the public becoming aware of it.

“And property,” he said. “If you own property and disclose that property you own, that could be something down the road that is used for some state project. There could be a conflict out there.”

Armstead says the public’s right to know demands that the ethics law be strengthened to include any holdings by a legislator’s spouse.

“I think we ought to do anything we can to help alleviate the public’s discomfort at times in terms of conflict of interest,” he said.

“They want us to be up here representing them, not any type of self-interest.”

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com