When you draft a bill or amendments, it’s not the same as writing a legal brief that a judge will scrutinize.

Your words should clearly convey the intent of the legislature.  However, there are frequently instances when certain words may not be legally necessary but are essential from a legislative or political standpoint.

I teach that to the law students in my Legislation classes.  Today I practiced it.

Under current law, if a legislator has represented a person for compensation before a state agency, the member must disclose the name of the person represented, the services performed, and the consideration received in an annual financial disclosure statement.

This statement is filed after the fact – by April 30 of this year for actions that occurred in 2012.  Consequently, the affected agency may be unaware that the legislator was representing a private individual, instead of acting on behalf of his or her constituents.

House Bill 222 would add a more timely reporting requirement.   A legislator would be required to file a written disclosure with the highest ranking official of the agency as well as the office of the official or employee with whom the legislator is being paid to communicate on behalf of another person no later than the first contact with the state agency.

At the hearing yesterday, two delegates expressed concerns that as lawyers they would have to file this form every time they had a client in district court.

My response at the witness table was legalistic: if you’re not already required to include this representation on your disclosure statement, this bill doesn’t require you to do anything.

I thought about asking the Attorney General’s Office what our ethics law mandates for the annual filing.

I decided to amend the bill instead, to exempt appearances in district and circuit court or before administrative law judges from the additional disclosure requirements.

If this language gets the bill a favorable report, it will be legislatively correct.