It’s no surprise that public officials are upset about the new rules that require them to report more details of their and their families’ financial interests.
As we report on page 1 of today’s issue, the Sweet Home City Council has decided to draft a letter to the state Ethics Commission protesting the new requirements.
The rules have prompted some city council and planning commission members in cities around the state to resign, including most of the city council and the entire commission in the small town of Elgin.
Sweet Home has already had some disclosure rules on the books, so the new rules may not be quite so draconian as they seem to officials in other cities who have experienced no such requirements.
We understand that people are loathe to disclose where they are financially. Public records reveal some information about what we own and even how much we paid for it. But it comes across as a little invasive when we have to list our close family members’ holdings and financial interests as well.
That’s the argument being made by those outraged by the rules.
Amid all the hubbub, though, remember that these rules came about because some public officials weren’t up front about conflicts of interest when they voted on issues or took trips paid for by people they could favor in a vote. Public officials work for us, the public. It’s our money they’re spending and our lives they’re affecting.
We’re interested in knowing exactly what interests they have that might affect us.
At the same time, when officials, who are largely volunteers, wonder if it’s really worth it to divulge otherwise private information so they can serve us, that’s a problem.
It’s clear that we need balance, particularly in those small, rural communities where the number of people interested in public service (for a pittance, at best) is not great and where there is a strong mind-your-own-business streak.
The governor and the Legislature need to recognize the problem and take another look at this issue and try to find that balance.