PA. HOUSE Panel to probe 'ghost voting'

A panel member was home when his votes were cast, a newspaper said.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- The state House Ethics Committee plans to investigate the alleged practice of representatives' arranging to have votes cast while their seats are vacant.
The committee's chairman, Rep. Thomas L. Stevenson, said Tuesday he had received more than two dozen letters within the past week from Philadelphia residents complaining about a practice known as "ghost voting."
One member of the committee recently admitted to a newspaper that he rigged his voting machine to vote for him when he was not in the Capitol.
"We have to do the right thing, and the right thing is to come up with a solution," said Stevenson, R-Allegheny. "If you have someone that has to step out of the hall of the House for a quick meeting or to go to the bathroom, that's one thing. If they are not in the Capitol and someone's voting for them, that's definitely a problem."
The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported about the practice in two stories published last week, and a column published Thursday urged readers to write to Stevenson.
Though some of the letters to Stevenson expressed general complaints about ghost voting, others specifically mentioned Rep. William Rieger, the ethics committee's ranking Democrat, Stevenson said.
What was reported
The Inquirer reported March 21 that on Feb. 3, a paper wad jammed into the "yea" button on Rieger's voting machine recorded him as present and enabled him to vote on six bills that day, even though he was at his home in Philadelphia.
Rieger did not return telephone messages left Tuesday by The Associated Press. He told the Inquirer that he came to Capitol on the day in question, but left a short time later because he felt ill.
Rieger initially denied knowing anything about the paper wad in his voting machine but later acknowledged to the newspaper that he put it there before he left.
Although he also collected a $126 per diem for food and lodging expenses for that day, the newspaper reported that he had returned the money and said his secretary had made an error in claiming it.
"When you have a situation where somebody plugs their [voting button] in an action that's intended to deceive, that should not be tolerated," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania, a government watchdog group.
House rules require members to be present in the chamber in order to vote, with no exceptions. In the Senate, Democratic and Republican leaders are permitted to vote on behalf of members who are away from the Capitol on legislative business.
Clancy Myer, the House parliamentarian for more than 20 years, said members have occasionally discussed ways to crack down on ghost voting, such as using a card-swipe or fingerprint-recognition system to register their vote but haven't been inclined to change the system.
"At least to this time, we've felt that the members can police themselves, and in 99 percent of the cases, it works out well," Myer said.
Explanation
In some situations, ghost voting can be a harmless way to dispense with routine matters while conducting other business, said Rep. Greg Vitali, a frequent advocate of measures to make lawmakers more accountable to the public.
"On the benign side ... you might put a paperclip in [to vote] when there are 30 noncontroversial resolutions going on, and perhaps you might go down and talk to other members about upcoming amendment or talk to floor leaders about strategy," said Vitali, D-Delaware.
House Speaker John M. Perzel, who has maintained that he cannot constantly monitor whether all 202 other House members are on the floor during votes, is "pleased" that the ethics committee is looking into the matter, said his spokeswoman, Beth Williams.
House Minority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Greene, said he doesn't consider ghost voting to be an "institutional" problem.
"I am not convinced that there have been systemic abuses historically, but I'm also certain that we can step into the breach and make improvements in the status quo," he said.
Stevenson is unsure how his committee will proceed, but its activities will be kept private under House rules. Any sanctions would be recommended to the full House in a committee report that must be made public.
"If this is going to proceed to a committee hearing, the first order of business is going to be replacing Rep. Rieger. It's a conflict of interest for him to sit and listen to complaints against him," Stevenson said.