Another day, another cheeseball graphic from the Internet. But in the case of the Vermont Legislature, there’s something a little bit off with this picture. It’d be more accurate if the red “X” was removed, because its conflict of interest rules are more designed to enable conflict than prevent it. And the standard, as flaccid as it is, seems to be applied with stunning inconsistency.

Exhibit A: The very good story co-authored by Carly Berlin and Liam Elder-Connors and published by VTDigger and Vermont Public, about the clear and obvious conflict of interest involving Republican Rep. Debbie Dolgin.

Dolgin’s husband Steve is a hard-nosed landlord from St. Johnsbury who has actively lobbied the Legislature to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants. Dolgin herself now sits on the House Committee on General and Housing, whose remit includes landlord/tenant law. In committee deliberations, she has openly advocated for her husband’s interests.

This isn’t a problem, I guess, because the House’s conflict standards are as loose as a pair of panties in the mind of Fifties illustrator Art Frahm.

Exhibit B: Same old song and dance in the Senate, whose Ethics Panel cleared Sens. Seth Bongartz and Scott Beck of conflict allegations over their decisive role in crafting Act 73 last year. The charges concerned Beck’s long employment at the “approved independent” St. Johnsbury Academy and Bongartz’ nearly two decades on the board of the “approved independent” Burr and Burton Academy. They were two of the three Senators on the committee of conference that wrote the final version of the bill, and they acted with clear preference toward the “approved independents.”

But it didn’t matter, as far as the somnolent watchdogs of the Senate were concerned.

See, in both chambers, it’s not a conflict unless a lawmaker has a unique interest in a piece of legislation. It’s not enough for, say, then-representative Adam Greshin to lobby in 2015 for a cut in Efficiency Vermont funding that would save him, as co-owner of the Sugarbush ski area, mucho dinero on the resort’s electricity costs. It’s not enough that he would have benefited far more than the average property owner; in the House’s view, it would have been a conflict only if a bill was written specifically to benefit Sugarbush and no one else.

Now, I realize that in a part-time citizen Legislature, some conflicts are inevitable and the standards can’t be overly strict. But the current rules are so permissive as to be completely ineffectual.

Except when they’re not. Which brings me to Exhibit C: The curious case of former state representative Caleb Elder, a professional in the solar energy industry. He has told me that when he was in the Legislature, he repeatedly sought appointment to the committee that dealt with energy issues. And he was repeatedly rebuffed by caucus leadership because his input on energy policy would constitute a conflict of interest.

In fact, he says that after he once spoke in favor of renewable energy on the House floor, a senior lawmaker told him he should never again speak on the issue because he had a conflict. “I was characterized as the greedy solar guy,” Elder recalls.

And yet Debbie Dolgin can play a significant role on housing policy, and Bongartz and Beck can wield great power over a major education reform bill. It’s certainly curious, since those three worthies’ interests are at odds with official Democratic policy on public education and tenants’ rights, while the Dems are supposedly the champions of renewable energy in the fight against climate change.

Elder’s view is that the Dems are ambivalent about renewables at best, and actively hostile at worst. Which kind of makes sense when you look at the majority’s ineffectual record at advancing green energy. The Legislature has had little to no effect in pushing back on the Scott administration’s efforts to kill large-scale wind, make it very difficult to site large-scale solar, and forever tighten the screws on net metering.

But that’s a story for another day. Today’s lesson is that the Vermont Legislature’s conflict standards are worthless — and designed to be that way. Unless, that is, leadership has a particular axe to grind on a specific issue or with a specific lawmaker.