http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/278639?...=GTEN_2008_3_25

Entire Elgin, Ore., Planning Commission Resigns
Mar 25, 2008,


By Ethan Schowalter-Hay

The entire planning commission of the City of Elgin resigned Thursday, March 20th, rather than consent to new ethics requirements taking effect this year.

"As volunteers in a small community, they all resigned rather than have the state post their personal and financial information on the Internet, and further having the state threaten them with fines and a Class C felony for protecting their privacy," said Elgin City Administrator Joe Garlitz.

A 2007 amendment to Chapter 244 of the Oregon Revised Statutes means that all public officials in Union and Wallowa counties, for the first time, will need to submit a Statement of Economic Interest to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

As the decision of the Elgin planners demonstrates, the change is not without controversy. An informational meeting has been called for Tuesday at 9 a.m. at the Misener Conference Room at 1001 Fourth Street. At that time, Tammy Hedrick, a trainer with OGEC, will discuss the issue and answer questions.

ORS 244.050 mandates that, among other positions, all elected officials, planners and administrators/managers at the city and county levels comply with the filing rule -- or suffer civil penalty.

Most such officials in Oregon have had to submit the statements since 1974 -- including in La Grande, Baker City and Union, and Union and Wallowa counties -- but 97 communities and six counties have been exempt, until now.

In Northeast Oregon, Cove, Elgin, Enterprise, Imbler, Island City, Joseph, Lostine, North Powder, Summerville, Ukiah and Wallowa are newly affected.

The disclosures relate to the economic interests of the public officials and their relatives or members of their household. They need to be filed by April 15, every year by those holding office on that date. The same people must submit a Quarterly Public Official Disclosure on the 15th of each month following the quarter.

In the economic interest statements, respondents must identify the source of any of their, their relatives' or a member of their household's income above $1,000 -- but not the amount itself.

The statements also address property holdings, shared business with lobbyists, honoraria, certain types of debt and investments, etc.

According to Hedrick, the information submitted in the economic statements is not yet posted online, but the commission is mandated to do so by 2010.

This morning, Garlitz predicted more fallout from the legislation in other sectors of Elgin city government.

In an interview prior to last night's planning commission resignations, Garlitz and Elgin Mayor Carmen Gentry expressed concern about the requirements' effect on volunteer positions.

"What's going to happen is that everyone is going to resign because they are all volunteers and don't want to file this paperwork," said Gentry.

"What's really scary about the April 15 deadline are the penalties, and who's going to risk getting a Class C felony for a volunteer public office?"

Garlitz said the information should not be made available online.

"If it was kept confidential with the ethics commission, that's one thing," he said, "but we don't want it on the Internet."

Gentry said, "This bill was pushed through under the radar."

She and Garlitz also argued that state law and city charter already structure against corruption and that the financial statements burden municipal bookkeeping.

In a guest column in this week's Observer, Marc Stauffer, a planning commissioner in Enterprise, argued against the "Nazi Germany-style ‘Ministry of Information' gathering tactic' of ORS 244.050.

"I understand and even applaud the efforts of the Legislature to curb governmental corruption," Stauffer wrote. "But is it right to drive from office those uncompensated volunteers that give freely of themselves in an effort to better the communities they live in?"

--------------

Good for them. Volunteers personal finances published on the web? Kiss my Rebel A*S*S!

Everyone says they want to reduce corruption and incompetence at all levels of government untill
someone actually tries to do so. Then too often, we hear, regulate those other guys but not me. I
wonder why those areas were initially excused from the Law.

It's not just volunteers having to make that information public, the way it's set up it'll take a lot of time and money, even paid employees might have to start taking bribes to pay the legal fees incurred by trying to comply and avoid felony charges.

Bribes would have to be worth little...not to be felonies...maybe bad sex.

I'd be bribing them?

There is not much anonymity in these small towns, Elgin has less than 2000 people and on the other hand there can be some tight groups that tend to control everything. What if some of these individuals move on and have higher political aspirations?

The legislation needs to be tailored to cover a wider range of circumstances. One size definitely doesn't fit all in these situations.

What suggestions can you offer for revisions?

Apply the law to those public employees that are not volunteers....totally exempt non-salaried volunteers no matter whether urban or rural?

Apply the law only to those at a capped income level?

This is an unofficial RFP.


lenal

Even the Republican Treasury Secretary is asking for more regulations of Financial Institutions. A
few liberal and progressive democrats have been trying to point out the cancer of De-regulation
ever sinse Reagan. Yellow Dog or Blue Dog Democrats have consistently blocked the effort. Regulations should be aimed primarilly at increasing transparancy and Openness.

Regulation of mortagage companies, banks and investment banks
is one thing...public posting of people's financials is another.
Just another item that will push people to unreported cash, IMHO.