A Gift Disclosure Loophole for Texas Local Government Officials
Robert Wechsler
An
article on the Texas Watchdog website focuses on a serious loophole
in the Texas gift disclosure policy, which applies to local government
officials. Section
176.003(a-1) of the Local Government Code (Title 5, Subchapter C)
states:
What makes this exception so odd is that if the giver has an interest in government decisions, it would be better that the giver not be sharing the official's meal, flight, or entertainment without disclosure. It is such long meetings, for the purpose of influencing decisions, that are the most important to disclose to the public.
Disclosure by Texas local government officials is already limited to gifts from a person who "enters or seeks to enter into a contract with a local governmental entity," which hardly covers all those who might want influence government decisions. Encouraging contractors and their lobbyists to accompany officials in addition to making them gifts only exacerbates the problem and seriously undermines any argument that disclosure is sufficient.
In Texas, under these rules, disclosure is ineffective. A gift ban, at least over a certain aggregate amount, would be preferable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- A local
government
officer is not required to file a conflicts disclosure statement in
relation to a gift accepted by the officer or a family member of the
officer if the gift is:
(1) given
by a family member of the person accepting the gift;
(2) a
political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code; or
(3) food,
lodging, transportation, or entertainment accepted as a guest.
What makes this exception so odd is that if the giver has an interest in government decisions, it would be better that the giver not be sharing the official's meal, flight, or entertainment without disclosure. It is such long meetings, for the purpose of influencing decisions, that are the most important to disclose to the public.
Disclosure by Texas local government officials is already limited to gifts from a person who "enters or seeks to enter into a contract with a local governmental entity," which hardly covers all those who might want influence government decisions. Encouraging contractors and their lobbyists to accompany officials in addition to making them gifts only exacerbates the problem and seriously undermines any argument that disclosure is sufficient.
In Texas, under these rules, disclosure is ineffective. A gift ban, at least over a certain aggregate amount, would be preferable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---