Financial disclosure is a good thing

1
Financial disclosure is a good thing
STOCK PHOTO

Local elected officials should welcome the new requirement that they complete Form 6 to report their financial condition, their assets and their sources of income.

Yes, filling out the form takes time and maybe research. Yes, once filed, these are public documents, and anyone who wants to can see how wealthy an elected official is, in addition to identifying the sources of that individual’s income.

Why should our local mayors, council members and commissioners be glad about this? Because it can increase the public’s trust in the people who are making decisions that directly affect the lives — and livelihoods — of those who are being governed.

For example, The Beacon is commonly asked to “do an investigation” into the money trail that is believed to be the impetus behind much of the development activity in West Volusia. Despite our in-depth reporting about the state laws and regulations that often make it nearly impossible for local officials to say “no,” the persistent assumption is that approving these developments somehow enriches those who vote “yes.”

While it’s extremely unlikely that any elected official would report illegal income — like a bribe from a developer — Form 6 at least allows voters to confirm whether their local elected officials are deriving their income directly from development.

This requirement for annual disclosure of income and assets valued at more than $1,000 has long existed for county council members and commissioners, and for state representatives and senators. The new law expands that to elected officials on the city level, who previously were required to file a simpler and less-detailed report.

The expansion to municipal government is a good idea. The public deserves to know where elected officials’ financial interests lie, and on what and whom they depend for their income.

Already in West Volusia, two members of the Orange City Council have resigned, protesting that the new law is an invasion of their privacy.

We agree; it is. It’s also a reminder of the enormousness of the power a person has when they are elected to office.

In exchange for this power to reach into the taxpayers’ pockets or regulate their personal lives and livelihoods, elected officials do — and should — give up a measure of privacy, financial and otherwise.

A strong democracy requires that “we the people” make informed decisions when we cast our votes for those we choose to represent us in the halls of power. Full financial disclosure enhances our ability to be informed.

A democracy also requires transparency. To fully participate in our government — local, state and national — we need to know what’s going on.

Anyone who runs for elected office should deeply contemplate the contract they are about to make with those whose lives they would regulate. It’s not a bargain to be taken lightly.

We encourage all of our elected officials to bite the bullet, and uphold their end of the bargain by getting to work on their Forms 6. We suspect it won’t hurt as much as they think it will.

No posts to display

1 COMMENT

  1. While I completely understand and agree with the need for ethics in government (almost sounds like “army intelligence”, doesn’t it?), I do have a problem listing what I own for the public record. That list in conjunction with my address is an engraved invitation to come rob me. (Though I suppose turnabout is fair play, isn’t it?) If someone sues me, that public record list saves opposing counsel from having to bother with doing an asset search. If I own something which might be considered controversial or politically incorrect (say, an expensive shotgun), that has no bearing on my ability to fulfill my official duties, but I know my political enemies and some journalists will have a field day with that knowledge. If I have a rental property, I’m an exploiter of the working class. If I own an airplane, I’m a rich playboy and/or a capitalist pig. If I own a boat (even a little one), I’m accused of being the idle rich . . . it never ends.

    I think this regulation is counterproductive. Anyone who wants to keep their financial affairs private, for whatever reason, won’t be running for local office. Keeping quiet isn’t illegal, publishing your entire financial picture for the public record is a really bad move. That list is also going to be a great resource for identity thieves, they’ll have most of your information right there for the taking, and you can bet they will.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here