Most members of the Provo Municipal Council said they think a proposed tightening of ethics rules is a good thing, but one member believes it's meant to target him as a private developer.

"I think it singles out certain people doing business in Provo, and it gags them," said Turley of the ordinance, which the council will next discuss at its meeting Tuesday night. "I'm a general contractor. What this says is that I can't go talk to the building department. I can't go talk to the engineering department. I can't go ask a city council member how they would like their communities to look."

City code currently says council members with conflicts cannot vote or comment on issues that the council is considering. That's in addition to state code, which says public officers must disclose conflicts ahead of time. Turley said that while he fully supports more stringent ethical standards, the measure essentially prohibits him from talking to any city staff about his work -- something that's crucial for processes like pulling building permits, he said. He believes he's being targeted by other council members as an elected official with business interests in town.

"There's only one council member who fits in that category," he said. "Those things can work hand-in-hand. They're not mutually exclusive."

There's no agenda against Turley or anyone who would represent private business on the council, said council Vice Chairman George Stewart. But, he conceded, the rule change probably would have a negative impact on Turley.

"We all make sacrifices when we run for office," he said. "What it would require him to do is just use an agent where there's a direct pecuniary impact."

Turley said that's still unfair.

"That's punitive," he said. "I want to build my family's house in Provo. Now I've got to hire an agent to build my own house?"

State Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said the policy could become a problem because there's too much gray area about what constitutes a conflict of interest. The problem is compounded when you have a part-time council because its members are often working in the private sector in ways that could present a conflict, he said.

"It's very difficult when you're a part-time legislator or city council member to define what a conflict is," Bramble said. "Unless we want a full-time city council, I think that this is going to be an issue no matter what the council decides to do."

Bramble, the state Senate majority leader, said legislation he introduced to state lawmakers this year failed because there couldn't be an agreement on when private interests become conflicts.

"Where we ran into the problem is that no matter what we did, it ended up being subjective," he said.

For that reason, Bramble said, even the current Provo rule that requires council members to recuse themselves is probably too restricting. Bramble said a policy of mandatory disclosure of conflicts and voluntary withdrawal from voting offers the best defense against ethics violations while still preserving the voice of residents who elect officials to represent their interests.

"I think disclosure is the great equalizer," he said.

But there may be a bigger problem with the ordinance: The case could be made that it violates the First Amendment rights of someone like Turley to free speech, Bramble said.

"Are they suspended because he's elected to the city council?" he said. "Are you going to disenfranchise those citizens that elected that person? Are they going to be denied a voice on the council on a critical issue because the councilman has an interest in that issue? That's a pretty compelling case."

Provo Councilwoman Midge Johnson owns a preschool called Wiz Kidz, which operates out of her home in southeast Provo. Johnson said she doesn't view the proposal as a threat to her business, but she has heard rumors that it's directed at a particular council member.

"If that's true, I think that would be a bad policy, to do an ordinance just to aim it at one person," she said. "I just don't think that there's a need there."

Johnson said she objects to the ordinance, but only because she feels that the current rules are sufficient to keep council decisions above board.

"I don't think there's anything that's happened recently that's glaring," she said. "I probably won't be voting for it just because I don't think we need it."

Councilwoman Sherrie Hall Everett also runs a business from her home doing graphic designing and marketing consulting. She said she doesn't see how the ordinance would affect her private work.

"I don't feel like the ordinance is a threat to my business," she said. "But, you know, when you pass a law, you can't just look at how it affects your particular circumstances. You have to look down the road."

Instead, the problem with the ordinance may just be that it's unnecessary, Everett said.

"The only difference is that it prohibits council members from even speaking to anybody about it. I'm wondering if that might be in excess," she said. "Why is it really necessary for us to legislate one step further from what's considered appropriate throughout the state?"

Simply because there's no reason not to, said council Chairwoman Cindy Richards, adding that Provo should be looking to expand its ethical oversight on principle.

"Politicians don't have a great reputation for integrity," she said. "Why not take the lead, and why not expect of us a higher standard?"

Richards said the ordinance is narrow enough that it shouldn't do anything more than prevent unethical behavior.

"The language is very clear: 'direct economic benefit,' " she said. "I think it doesn't cause a problem for anyone who has that inner instinct about good boundaries and appropriate interactions. Most people do have that instinct anyway."

Other community members are also weighing in. Steve Densley, president of the Provo-Orem Chamber of Commerce, said he's concerned the new rule would scare away qualified people from running for public office.

"I wouldn't want it to somehow cause people a great concern about running for city council or be involved in some way by virtue of their backgrounds," he said. "Those people who are on the city council definitely have strengths, and I would hate to moot those strengths."

The city's ethical environment -- and its business environment -- may fare just as well without the proposed change, Densley said.

"City council members may not be able to talk to one another about issues they have expertise in. That seems kind of stupid," he said. "I think there are enough laws already in place."

In the months leading up to last year's election, former Councilman Dave Knecht, who was running against Turley, accused Turley of conflict-of-interest problems. Knecht claimed that Turley argued for increased development in an environmentally sensitive area near Provo Canyon, where it was later revealed that he owned property.

Knecht said that as a councilman, he was lobbied by Turley regarding at least one personal project. He said the ordinance would reduce tensions in the council by taking parties with personal interests not just out of the discussion, but out of the room altogether.

"All it takes sometimes is that stare-down, or the smile, or the thumbs-up or whatever it is," he said. "I suppose the best way to ensure that is you're not in the room."

But, Knecht said, he sympathizes with the increased difficulty Turley and others may face in conducting routine private business as a member of the council.

"I can see a problem with communications with staff in order to just do the business you would like to do and have a right to do," he said. "But I can understand why people would want to perhaps tighten it up."