CANTON — Neither of two dueling ethics laws has made it to a public hearing yet.

An overhaul of the controversial plan came up again at Monday's meeting of the St. Lawrence County Legislature's Services Committee.

County lawmakers have considered two versions of an ethics law update this year. The initial version presented in March deeply divided the Legislature. It included broad disclosure requirements and created an ethics panel with the power to conduct investigations and levy penalties.

A second plan that emerged in October contains less intrusive disclosure requirements and creates a smaller ethics board limited to passing questions about potential violations along to the county attorney or district attorney.

"I was really opposed to the initial draft. It went too far," said Legislator Peter W. FitzRandolph, D-Canton. "It asked advisory groups to do things we have no business in asking them to do."

The Legislature on Monday night first took up an amended version of the first proposed ethics law. Changes to the law made it strong without being burdensome, Mr. FitzRandolph said.

Other lawmakers disagreed, shooting it down 8-6, with one legislator absent.

Lawmakers objected particularly to the disclosure form, especially as it applied to members of advisory boards, as well as the information sought on the finances of relatives and volunteer activities.

The less intrusive alternative, a revised version of the county's 1991 law, also came up empty.

An expert who reviewed the draft wrote in an e-mail to Legislator Tedra L. Cobb, D-Canton — who has pushed for reform — that the county would be better with nothing because the watered-down version gives the illusion of an ethics law but has no substance.

Legislature Vice Chairman Frederick S. Morrill, D-Hermon, who organized the revision with several other lawmakers, asked to hold off any vote on the proposal so they could consider changes.

"Given some time, I believe we could improve this," he said.

Legislator Thomas Nichols, R-Oswegatchie, picked at the more stringent disclosure form — particularly on non-binding requirements from relatives — favored by Ms. Cobb until she broke in to correct his interpretations. He then demanded her silence.

"Robert's Rules of Order say I have the floor," Mr. Nichols said.

Mr. FitzRandolph argued that a strict law that can be amended later is better than one that starts off with inadequate guidelines.

"I think it's important for the public to know the other things in our life that have the potential for a conflict of interest," Mr. FitzRandolph said. "What we're currently asked to disclose is laughable."

Legislator Daniel J. Girard, D-Louisville, said he preferred not to vote on any county ethics law.

"There should be a state law. I think they've really passed the buck on us here," he said. "All of us should be working with the same level of ethics. It should be higher rather than lower."