New Oregon Disclosure Laws Causing Quite A Stir

Local News

Rachel Biddlecome April 12, 2008

Privacy and Open Government Clash

On April 2, 2008 Oregon Government jurisdictions, both large and small were sent Disclosure Forms from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. (OGEC) The forms were then forwarded by each entity to nearly every Government leader or decision maker around the State.

Oregon Revised Statute 244.050 requires every elected city official, member of city planning, zoning, or development commission and the chief executive officer of government agency, to file a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI), commonly known as Disclosure Forms.

Also included in the forms from the OGEC was a letter from Mike McCauley, Executive Director of the League of Oregon Cities. He is concerned about using resignations as a type of protest. The forms are “not intended to be permanent” and would shift focus from an “examination of what’s wrong with the law to how to add to the law to prevent ‘gaming’, another response to the law that has been proposed by some is to partially comply and not report those items that are seen as too onerous or objectionable,” he wrote.

However, as many point out if not careful this action could result in a Class C felony.

“The bottom line is that the support for the new law was overwhelming in the legislature and among the media.” McCauley reminded constituents. “We are looking at legislative efforts in the 2009 session, but those efforts will be for naught if the legislature and the media are dealing with attempts to circumvent the law, rather than the legitimate grievances raised by the law’s overreaching.”

Some jurisdictions also added their own input when they forwarded the forms to decision makers. Astoria City Manager Paul Benoit, in a letter to Councilors and Commissioners, wrote the new rules “may seem onerous and have raised concerns across the state.” And that “provisions of the new law are over-reaching and are legitimately causing consternation, the requirements remain the law.”

The forms must be complete and returned postmarked no later than Tuesday, April 15, 2008. These same forms also need to be filled out every quarter and returned no later than the 15th of the month. The only ones exempt are those that assumed a position after April 15th or vacate a position prior to April 15th.

On the Forms

Required information that has changed from 2006; Names of Relatives of the filer and Names of adults in the filer’s household.

Other required information for 2007, which may have minor wording changes –

Names under which filer or a member of his/her household did business in the previous calendar year;

The five most significant sources (not amounts) of income in the filer’s household;

Amounts of Honoraria over $50, Business investments of over $1000 made by filer or a member of the filer’s household.

Required information for 2007 that was the same as 2006 –

Name, Address and description of business owned, partly owned or directed by filer, or member of household;

Real property the filer or member of the filer’s household owns or has an interest in (Excludes Primary residence);

A shared business with a registered lobbyist;

Value received by filer for an office related event such as a trip or conference;

Source of Income greater than $1000 that was derived from a person or business with a legislative or administrative interest;

Source of debt that is owed to a person or business with a legislative or administrative interest;

Business investments of over $1000 made by filer or a member of the filer’s household.

These forms used to be filed yearly, but now it is required to file quarterly. “Forms will be available on the Oregon Government Ethic’s Commissions’ website and it will be the responsibility of each official to file the form by the 15th month following each quarter,” shared Benoit. “The law states that those who fail to file their SEI could be liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 and/or suspension from performing their official duties,” he added.

The Crux and Reactions

The main issue with the SEI is having to list relatives, the form states “relatives” means – “ the spouse or domestic partner of the public official; any children, siblings, spouses of siblings or parents of the public official or of the public officials’ spouse; any individual for whom the public official has a legal support obligation; or an individual for whom the public official provides benefits arising from the public official’s public employment or from whom the public official receives benefits arising from that individual’s employment”.

For relatives to be included in the forms they must be over 18 years of age. And, Member of Household is anyone living with the official that is over 18 years of age.

There are three ways that this change is being handled in Oregon, and Clatsop County specifically. Some are resigning, others are answering with trepidation, and the rest are answering without any personal concerns.

There have been two resignations; Bill Harris, Former Clatsop County Planning Commissioner, and Diane Widdop Councilwoman of Gearhart.

Bill Harris

Bill Harris, Former Clatsop County Planning Commissioner stated in his letter to Bruce Francis, Chairman of the Clatsop County Planning Commission, April 8th 2008 “ I find the new OGEC requirements simply too invasive to my private, personal, financial and family’s life.”

In talking with Harris on April 10th, he pointed out some positions are required to fill out the form, where others do not. For example, he had to fill it out as a Planning Commissioner, but not as the Chairman of the Budget Committee at the Port of Astoria, since he is a citizen appointee. He did not resign as a protest, but he did not want to provide a government agency the information, because “who knows what they will do with it”, and putting it up on the Internet only compounds matters. “They expect us to report quarterly on their website but it is not even up yet….They expect me as a volunteer to fill out the form but yet will fine me if I don’t. I take issue with the language in the form, saying I MUST fill it out, and that if I fail to do so I will be fined….I had tolerated it for the last few years.” But now with them digging into his wife and how she earns her income, it is all just “a little bit too much.”

Additionally Harris isn’t so much worried about him, but about others and “it just shouldn’t be required.” He views it not as an information request, but as a mandate. If everyone resigns, that would cause the state to figure out what they are going to do, but Harris doubts that will happen.

In the last commission meeting it was mentioned that a letter campaign to the Oregon Legislature might be a good idea, however others think it would not be effective. Harris understands what the State is trying to do but thinks this is just the wrong way to go about it.

Dianne Widdop

Dianne Widdop, member of the Gearhart City Council resigned effective April 4th 2008. She would never have run for re-election if she had known about the requirements that would be imposed. “I consider them to be serious violations of privacy without any corresponding benefit to the public.” If her fellow council member Ed Tice, who also disagreed with the new regulations, resigns, the council will be left without a quorum.

Answering the forms with trepidation are Larry Pfund and Ann Samuelson.

Larry Pfund

Port of Astoria Vice-Chair Larry Pfund explained the Port commission was not previously subject to the same disclosure laws as other councilors and commissioners. Before this new form, they had to fill out ORS 777, which was only a page or so, instead of the over 4 pages on the new form. Plus the old form was much less invasive. Last year Pfund’s ORS777 form was misplaced by the state and he had to send a letter to contest the fine. So the thought that he could be fined up to $5,000 if they lose this form worries him. His main issue with the new disclosure laws is the impact it may have on his family. “I don’t like dragging my family, my children into my politics.”

As for the financial information he now has to disclose, “I don’t have anything to hide.” But, he still doesn’t like the idea that Government is reaching into his information when, “many of us are doing this on a volunteer basis.” And “It wasn’t what we signed up for.” He also mentioned that resigning wasn’t an option for him as the Port is “right in the middle of huge changes.”

Ann Samuelson

Ann Samuelson, Clatsop County Commission Vice Chair, began her four-year term in January of 2007. She represents District 5, which includes Cannon Beach, Arch Cape, Hamlet and Jewell. Her main disagreements is with giving up names of relatives. She has elderly relatives, as well as children in the area, who she wants to protect from “mean spirited groups” who are known for “creating stories”. Samuelson said “Harming my family is worse than harming me”. She does not see how giving out that type of information would help anyone, and feels $800 a month isn’t worth giving up personal information, but plans to fill out the form and send it in Monday.

Samuelson also brought up the very relevant issue of identity theft. She had her identity stolen when someone used her mother’s name. “It is not fair that because I chose to be in public service that my family could be under attack.” She just wants to protect her family, especially in the current political climate.

Those answering the questions without any personal worries are Stubby Lyons and Jeff Hazen.

Stubby Lyons

Stubby Lyons, Seaside City Council Member, had no qualms disclosing all information, and has already sent his forms in. His wife Sherri mentioned it being “no big deal.” They didn’t see a reason why anyone would want to know the name of relatives, but did not know that it would be available on the Internet. And even after they were informed it would be online in the near future it still didn’t bother them.

Jeff Hazen

Clatsop County Commissioner Jeff Hazen, has filled out “similar forms for years”, he was on Warrenton’s City Commission as well as Mayor there before serving the County. “I have no problem filling it out myself but I understand the issue others have with it” stated Hazen. He works for Costco, a large company and his wife works part-time, so disclosing income was not an issue for him. Having to list family members names didn’t bother Hazen. However, if they had been asked to disclose relatives’ income and addresses and phone numbers he would have resigned. He thinks the law was a knee jerk reaction on the part of the state legislative government, and feels the State is being so invasive because they had problems with state officials. “I do think they went to far” stated Hazen, but “I am very open about what I do.” The issue of the information being put on the Internet did not personally concern Hazen, because he doesn’t have immediate family in the area besides his in-laws. He thinks the Governor needs to look these forms over and that the legislature will probably change requirements for next year.

Comparing Oregon To Other States

In Nevada volunteers do not have to file financial disclosure statements, only those who “will be entitled to receive annual compensation of $6000 or more.” Compensation includes all “remunerations, except reimbursement for meals, lodging and/or travel.” In addition it only includes elected or appointed officials, not those “serving in a purely advisory capacity.” see NRS 281.4635. Forms include, Length of residence in Nevada and district registered to vote, For you and each member of your household 18 years of age and over: Each source of income, Real estate other than principal residence, Each creditor owed $5,000 or more—except residence mortgage, Gifts in excess of aggregate of $200, Business entity relationships, Public offices held.” The statements are then “public record and are retained for 6 years from date of filing.” There is no mention of listing relatives, nor it being available online.

In Washington State, regarding Local/Judicial appointments, state reports are not required for federal office, in a town or jurisdiction that had fewer than 1,000 registered voters, for precinct committee officer; or for an office in a district where voters must own property or have other special qualifications. Those that have to file Form F-1 are candidates in a town or taxing district that does not include the entire county, and had fewer than 5,000 registered voters. Those that have to file forms F-1 and C-1 are those that have more voters and spend up to $5,000 and receive $500 or less from any donor. Over $5,000 they must file F-l, C-1 and C-3 and C-4 according to their schedules. The only ones required to file electronically are those that spend over $10,000. On their F-1’s they must list their or their family members, income, real estate holdings, assets and investments, interest and dividends, and creditors. The fine print states that if you qualify for you must fill out an F-1 attachment. They must list immediate family members if non-dependant, or if “dependant with something to report”, and spouse. They also have nondisclosure forms one can fill out so they don’t have to fill out the F-1. They made no mention of relatives outside of the immediate family, nor the information being available online.

According to Campaigndisclosure.org, “The passage of comprehensive campaign finance legislation in 2005 boosted Oregon from a C- and the 24th ranking in 2005 to a B+ and 3rd place overall in 2007. Oregon ranked higher in each scoring category and was the most improved state in 2007. Oregon’s strengthened disclosure law earned an A and ranks second in the nation in 2007.” In addition, “Oregon’s grade in the Online Contextual and Technical Usability category rose from a D to a C in 2007 as the state improved its usability test performance.”

Cary Johnson, currently running for Clatsop County Commissioner summed it up saying, “The disclosure laws have good intentions but I am wary. I think being required to put personal information about my family on the Internet has the potential for abuse. These rules can be discouraging for people who want to serve their community and the County Planning Commission lost a dedicated volunteer.” (Indicating Bill Harris)

As all these officials found out, the requirements may change during ones term. If you are considering running or volunteering for office be aware that your personal information may become public, and the rules may get more stringent during your term, as it is all on the whim of the Oregon Legislature. The Governor states, “The citizens of Oregon are entitled to an open government and the assurance that public officials are serving the best interest of the public — not personally gaining from their position as a public official.” He concluded, “There is a line between the public responsibility and private lives of public officials, and we’re looking to see if the current law struck that right balance or if it has gone too far.”

Resources –

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OR_ETHICS_LAW_RESIGNATIONS_OROL-?SITE=OREUG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=89537&sid=1&fid=7
http://www.dailyastorian.com/Main.asp?SectionID=2&ArticleID=50244
http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/forms/oge450_2006/oge450_automated_06.pdf
http://www.gorgecommission.org/client/forms/OR_guide_public_officials.pdf
http://www.open-oregon.com/New_Pages/192-410.shtml
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8VJBJM83.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-hancock0619,0,5972833.column
http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/Press/2003/121803.pdf
http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org
http://apps.oregonnews.com/nrpcpolls/story-comments.php?sid=683572518&mode=flat&order=0
http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics/2008/01/bradbury_to_form_group_to_exam.html

11 Comments

On Apr 12, 3:03 PM, Reader wrote:

Whoa! Looks like we have a new up and coming reporter!

Attn. Local Media - Look out for NCO!

On Apr 12, 6:03 PM, Uncle Walt wrote:

“The bottom line is that the support for the new law was overwhelming in the legislature *and among the media*.” McCauley reminded constituents. “We are looking at legislative efforts in the 2009 session, but those efforts will be for naught if the legislature *and the media* are dealing with attempts to circumvent the law, rather than the legitimate grievances raised by the law’s overreaching.”

Seems McCauley puts a lot of credence in how THE MEDIA thinks government should run. More credence than is warranted, in fact. Since I’ve never seen anything in the Constitution making THE MEDIA part of government, I fail to see how they are part of the legal process to deal with attempts to circumvent law - or make a decision of what a “good” law is.

But when you have a governor who cares more for pandering to THE MEDIA than actually protecting the People of his state ... what else can you expect?

On Apr 12, 6:10 PM, THartill wrote:

I think it’s more of a potshot at the media than anything. He is probably thinking that News People are over-covering the resignations. And yet they said nothing earlier.

I betcha when it’s said and done, they axe the relatives disclosure and the quarterly reports. That seems like a major pain for all parties involved and costly. Rumor has it that they only have 5 Staff members to handle these applications.

On Apr 12, 6:47 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

From what I’ve seen, the main problem people have with this is disclosing information on their RELATIVES which may be available on the internet.

It doesn’t seem right that if I were to be on the City Council or serve as a County Commissioner, that every one of my relatives names and addresses would be available online. It’s not that I have anything to hide, because I wouldn’t - but I see no need to put my relatives names out there.

I think one thing that got to me the most was that if my child were to receive a gift from a friend, that would have to be declared, and that that friend better be sure not to give them anything worth more than $50 in a year. Simply ridiculous.

I know that the Gov. is looking at this - I hope that it goes away, otherwise there are alot of really good people who won’t have a thing to do with local government because they don’t want their family under a microscope!

On Apr 13, 8:36 AM, RBiddlecome wrote:

More about Diane Widdop’s thoughts - http://seasidesignal.com/articles/2008/04/11/news/local_news/doc47ff922177a76157826592.txt

On Apr 13, 9:48 AM, Marvin McConoughey wrote:

I support financial disclosure by public officials--up to a point. That point has been crossed when volunteers in relatively low level positions are required to be informants on their relatives’ personal financial situations. The problems with the intrusive, domineering, approach are several. One, of course, is the present spate of resignations. Another is the erosive effect on citizen willingness to serve without pay. A third is the potential refusal of affected relatives to share the required income information. A fourth is the potential for the state to face a major, history-setting, lawsuit for forced invasion of personal privacy.

I am concerned about the tone-deafness of the agency involved in seeking and publishing the demanded financial information. We now have genuine citizen concern being expressed and the response is the kind of dismissive, bland, bureaucracy-speak that too often gives governments a well-deserved bad reputation. These are bureaucrats who, based on their recent statements, I would not want to know further, or to have them in my local neighborhood.

On Apr 13, 12:42 PM, David Jones wrote:

The level and treatment of disclosure required under the new regulations would discourage me from volunteering or running for office. My siblings would give me grief. Justifiably, what I do should have no impact upon them unless they participate.

The new rules are a lazy person’s approach, which may be why the news media support it so much. It makes the job of digging so much easier. However, if the rules were applied to editors, publishes, news producers, investigative research staffs, media owners and reporting staff, they would quickly scream invasion of privacy and violation of first amendment rights, justifiably so.

On Apr 14, 10:16 AM, Dianne Widdop wrote:

The following is my actual letter of resignation:
I am resigning my position as a Gearhart City Councilor effective April 3, 2008. While I have enjoyed and been honored to have served as a volunteer City COuncilor for the past 13+ years, I cannot continue to serve under the conditions recently established by the State Legislature.

I have filed the economic statement of interest forms every year since my election. The thrust of questions has been to identify personal economic interest that might impact my actions as a City Councilor on issues that come before the council. It has also been my understanding, perhaps incorrectly, that the information being supplied to the State Standards & Practices Commission was confidential in nature. The purpose of providing this information to the relevant oversight agency was to enable that agency to perform its function should a complaint be filed.

The new Statement of Economic Interest states that if I remain an elected official on April 15, 2008, I will be required to:
a. Provide the names of family members regardless of their relevance to any issue likely to come before the Gearhart City Council and whether they have given authorization for their names to be made public.
b. Provide the five most significant sources of income for my household even if a source of income has no relevance to any issue likely to come before the Gearhart City COuncil.

It is also my understanding that any information provided is subject to the Oregon Public Records law and that at a future date may be made available on a state website.

I would not have run for re-election in 2006 had these requirements been in effect, as I consider them to be serious violations of privacy without any corresponding benefit to the public, and I will not continue in office now that they are.
Dianne WIddop

On Apr 14, 11:09 AM, Simmons wrote:

This is an incredible violation of privacy, especially for members of the family. And think of the control the family now has over the elected individual? If siblings get into a squabble they can threaten a lawsuit if their names are made public online, they can force the individual to vote as they want. Think of all of the volunteers who are appointed for a four year term on a committee that meets for maybe four days each year (like a budget committee) and yet has to fill these forms out every three months, detailing all relatives and all sources of income! Ridiculous. No one is going to come forward to serve in their communities.

On Apr 14, 6:35 PM, RBiddlecome wrote:

Diane- Thanks for posting your letter of resignation!

On Apr 20, 12:10 PM, RBiddlecome wrote:

Gearhart City Council-
Charles Mattocks and Albert Carder were both appointed on the 10th
Tice and Well said they planned to send in their forms, I assume they did as the deadline was the 15th.
http://seasidesignal.com/articles/2008/04/17/news/local_news/doc48078b235f884216673392.txt

NorthCoastOregon.com

Local News

New Oregon Disclosure Laws Causing Quite A Stir

11 Comments

Submit A Comment

Search

Local Media

Police Blotter

Articles Elsewhere

Recent Comments

Elsewhere

Local Links

Local Government

Clatsop Blog Network

Local Blog Posts