Disclosure of the Names of Those Whose Benefit Creates a Conflict of Interest

The word is out:  if local government officials don't want to file financial disclosure statements, all they have to do is resign en masse and whoever wrote the ethics code will not only rewrite it, but will say all sorts of warm, wonderful things about them.

This is the conclusion that comes from yesterday's passage of changes to Oregon's ethics code, which applies to local government officials. Several changes were made, nearly all weakening the code. But the one everyone focused on was the requirement to disclose the names of relatives, which was taken out of the ethics code.

Two facts seem to have been left out of discussions of this change. One is that the ethics code's conflict of interest provision, and many other provisions of the code, apply not only to officials, but also to their relatives. The other missing facts are the code's definition of relatives (below), and which of these relatives must be named in a disclosure form (only those over 18):
So what the big fight is about is listing one's spouse, one's adult children, one's parents and in-laws, one's adult siblings and their spouses, and one's former spouses or others with whom one has a support relationship. No cousins, aunts or uncles, grandchildren or grandparents.

Put together the two things left out of the discussions and you have the reason why these people were required to be listed:  when any of these people benefits from an official's act, there is a conflict of interest, according to Oregon law. If no one knows who these people are, how will anyone know if they might benefit from an official's act?

My immediate family is not a secret, although no one in my town knows any of them, other than my wife, since none of them lives here. I would not have the slightest problem listing them on a form. If my brother or my sister-in-law were to possibly benefit from anything I do in New Haven, where I am an administrator, this should be known. If I didn't disclose this fact, then people should be able to look at my disclosure form and call me on my failure to disclose.

But according to the majority party's press release, legislators felt they were being highly just. One is quoted as saying, "Last year’s well-intentioned ethics reforms unfairly subjected these local elected and volunteer officials to invasive reporting requirements and unnecessary limitations.  This bill sets those wrongs right.  This bill continues to protect the tradition of honor and respect that accompanies those who are willing to serve their state and community.”

And the president of the League of Cities said, "As a result of the Senate’s courage, patience and even a little bit of humility, Oregon is one step closer to having an ethics policy that treats our local, volunteer elected officials with dignity and respect while ensuring that the public’s business is being done in the public’s interest.” I like that "one step closer," which means that the League wanted to cut the disclosure requirements much, much further, as do nearly all municipal associations, who too often see their rule as protecting the private interests of their members, even though the public pays their membership fees.

Is disposing with annual disclosure of the very people whose involvement may create a conflict of interest truly an act of courage, honor, and respect? Is asking for this information truly invasive and disrespectful? Is a public official's private interest paramount, even in an ethics context?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---