How Much Needs to Be Disclosed?
Maryland has a rule that local ethics ordinances must require the disclosure of all an elected
official's real property, stocks, and bonds. According to <a href="http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/mount-airy-tables-ethics-o…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Carroll County <i>Times</i></a>, the Mount Airy council
keeps passing an ethics ordinance that requires the disclosure only
of real property in Mount Airy and surrounding counties, but nowhere
else. And the state ethics commission keeps rejecting the ordinances
as insufficiently strict.<br>
<br>
This year, a bill was introduced that would require local elected
officials to disclose only property in their town or county, and
property acquired from someone who has done business with the local
government. The bill did not pass.<br>
<br>
According to the state EC, 62 out of the state's 73 municipalities
have passed an acceptable ethics ordinance. Mount Airy's council
president says that some of the 11 that haven't passed an acceptable
ordinance are “rallying the troops” to resist the law.<br>
<br>
I think they're right to resist, and to insist on a lessening of the
requirement. This is a problem of applying state rules at the local
level (state law requires that local requirements be "equivalent to or exceed the requirements of state law"). A state elected official should certainly disclose any
property owned in the state. But a local official's disclosure
should be limited to the local government's jurisdiction.
Acquisitions and rentals from, and sales and rentals to, those doing
business with the local government should also be disclosed, but for
a different reason: these show relationships that may require
withdrawal from matters involving individuals and entities that come
before the official.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---