Ethics Commission notes
I dropped in on the N.C. Ethics Commission for their meeting today.
One item of note was up for discussion: the commission is getting ready to send a package of requests to the legislature, either for increases in resources or tweaks to their law.
Some make good sense, no matter who you are. For example, they're talking about storing and distributing financial disclosure forms signed by legislators, board members and the like in electronic form. As anyone who has ever made the pilgrimage to the basement of the administration building on Jones Street can tell you, electronic distribution makes a whole lot more sense than having banks and banks of file cabinets.
Some are a little iffy. One example: Currently, "covered persons" - anyone required by law to submit a disclosure form - must report if they own $10,000 or more worth of an individual stock. They don't have to report the amount or number of shares, just that they own it.
William Pope, a board member from Iredell County, said that threshold ought to be raised to $100,000.
Jane Pinsky, director of the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, was in the audience and suggested that $100,000 might be a tad high.
"For many people in North Carolina, having $10,000 in stock is a lot of money," Pinsky said.
Pope later backed off his thought.
"I don't think there's anything magic about raising it to $100,000," he said. "My personal view is that people are basically honest ... I just think the threshold is too low."
The ethics commission staff said they would look at what other state ethics boards use as a threshold and report back. It seemed like there was general consensus for raising the bar, though. That would mean the public would know of fewer cases where there is a conflict of interest.
Will someone sell their good name for the impact an action may have on $10,000 worth of stock? Who knows? Where's the threshold? Michael Decker sought a $50,000 bribe to keep Jim Black in power, so maybe $50,000 should be the threshold?
Being a reporter, I'm always in the more sunshine is better camp, but could be wrong.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Why shouldn't they have to do like congress?
Disclose range or value of holdings?
Posted on January 16, 2009 2:56 PM
Whether they should reveal the value of their holdings may be for another day.
This is a case of what the law requires them to do right now.
It's worth noting that any filing is simply taking a snapshot in time...What you own on Dec. 31 may not be what you own on Jan. 2.
Still, one might imagine a good argument that the snapshot in question should be complete as possible.
Posted on January 16, 2009 2:59 PM
this needs to trickle down to the local level as well
Posted on January 16, 2009 6:25 PM
William Pope, a board member from Iredell County, said that threshold ought to be raised to $100,000.
Jane Pinsky, director of the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, was in the audience and suggested that $100,000 might be a tad high.
"For many people in North Carolina, having $10,000 in stock is a lot of money," Pinsky said.* From N&R
Funny! It appears that these state officals have no idea that stock values have been falling amost 40% to 60% in the past year. No doubt these political fools believe that this transparency of Obama change will have no affect on Benard Madoff market conditions or holding....
If one runs for political office, complete transparency is required down to the last Nickel or Penny, Of course, if one does not believe in the Jim Black International House Of Pancakes ethical reform for government, than why should something of value mean nothing in the end?
Posted on January 17, 2009 7:41 PM