Stakeholders and Local Government Transparency

Corporate executives have obligations not only to stockholders, but
also to other stakeholders, including customers, creditors, and the
greater community. However, government officials, at least from the
government ethics point of view, have overwhelming obligations only
to members of their immediate community. Is this right?<br>
<br>

What made me think of this was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/business/sec-urges-reforms-of-municip…; target="”_blank”">an

article in yesterday's New York <i>Times</i></a> with the headline, "S.E.C. Suggests Reforms of
Municipal Bond Market." One of the S.E.C.'s suggestions was that
investors in municipal bonds should have more information, starting
with audited financial statements, which are required from all
corporations, but not from municipalities. Requiring this would mean
getting Congress to act.<br>
<br>
But shouldn't transparency apply not only to municipal residents,
but also to municipal investors? Without investors (primarily wealthy individuals and ordinary people through their pension plans), it would be difficult for a city, county, school system, or agency to purchase police cars or fire engines, or build
new schools and other government buildings.<br>
<br>
Why don't local government associations sit down to draft a model law on transparency to
municipal bond investors, based on S.E.C. recommendations? The information that would be required
would also be useful to local citizens. Investors and
citizens shouldn't have to wait for Congress or state legislatures to act.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---