Oregon officials quit over ethics rules
About 150 civic leaders, including volunteers, object to new disclosure requirements.
Help wanted: public servants willing to disclose major sources of income, business interests, real estate holdings and the names of their adult relatives.
Sayonara and good luck with that, said some 150 elected and appointed Oregon officeholders who walked away from their public service gigs this month rather than disclose personal data. Many said they were particularly disturbed by the new requirement -- apparently unique to Oregon -- that they name so many family members.
Resignations struck dozens of cities.
In rural eastern Oregon, the revolt against the state's new conflict-of-interest disclosure law obliterated some city governments.
In Elgin, the mayor, all six City Council members and all five planning commissioners opted to quit rather than file. Lexington lost its entire council, Enterprise its five-member Planning Commission. Banks lost four council members, North Powder three; Rogue River, Umatilla and Stanfield lost two each.
Roger Stover, a 14-year Elgin councilman, cited privacy as his reason for resigning. The required forms, he said, would have tied his "whole family together" in one place like no other easily available public record.
Triggering the upheaval is this change in Oregon law: For nearly 35 years, many public officials had to file Statements of Economic Interest that disclosed officeholders' sources of income, property holdings and business interests. But 97 communities had been exempt from it. Last year, the Legislature voted to end those exemptions -- and expanded the law to include a provision calling for the naming of all adult relatives.
The law now applies to about 5,000 officeholders -- mayors, city council members, planning commissioners, school district superintendents and financial officers -- said Ron Bersin, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. The deadline for submitting information was April 15, and 150 officials had not filed, in effect notifying the agency that they were resigning, Bersin said.
"This law reflects the public's concern for transparency and accountability in government," he said. "The public wants to know if decisions you are making benefit you personally."
Still, no other state's disclosure laws sweep as broadly, said Peggy Kerns, director of the National Conference of State Legislatures' Ethics Center in Denver.
