This was a great accomplishment of the 2007 session and I hope that nothing in the law is removed. That being said I do think a better education program should be implemented for the officials that have never had to file these reports before. It doesn't matter whether you come from a town of 100 or 100000, if you are a official of the town you need to be accountable to the people you represent. Living in a small town where many times the few business owners of the area are also public officials it is very very easy to find yourself having a conflict of interest when passing ordinance and city initiative. These new requirements will help the citizens as well as the public leaders determine a clearer line of what is an acceptable vs unacceptable conflict instead of just guessing.

"That being said I do think a better education program should be implemented for the officials that have never had to file these reports before. "

The way I read the SJ article, there were small town officials who didn't want their adult children's names and addresses online.

Surely the ethics package is not so fragile that the question of whether being on a local planning comm. means all your adult children's names and addresses appear online can't be discussed publicly and perhaps either tweaked or explained better.

If I were living in a small town, I'm not sure I'd get involved in local politics if it meant the names and addresses of my relatives who are not involved in politics would be available online. And I say this as an ethics and campaign reform advocate.

I live just outside of Sisters. The City Council and for that matter the Deschutes County commisioners never saw a develpment scheme they DID NOT like. Maybe people will wake up, to their great surprise,that realtors, developers, bankers and builders have a strangle hold on the land use fate of Central Oregon. Make the process transparent,make them declare their conflicts of interest,by making them come out of the dark we will see why some head scratching decisions have been made!

I was the chair of the City of Enterprise Planning commission. I resigned not only to protect the right to privacy of my family but to protest ORS 244's effect on my communities local government. I might suggest to all of you concerned Oregonians that you read the entire bill and then think about its ramifications for your local community. I don't know about you, but the thought of a state agency being given a blank check to grow itself to an unspecified size and then that burden being placed on the already strained local, county and state body general funds as an unfunded mandate, alarming. I don't know about you, but i am very concerned about the sweeping away of ANY vote of the people by the Legislature, especially in the case of this ORS's sweeping away of the 97 cities and 6 counties (mostly rural) vote to opt out. Finally, it is very scary to me to give a state agency the unrestrained power to remove a candidate from the ballot, not allow the certification of votes, or remove from office an official simply because they will not abdicate their right to their families privacy. There are plenty of ethics rules already written into the ordinances and charters of your communities and the State Constitution. We have to quit being apathetic citizens and get involved. Don't let a state agency try to do your job. You are the government: of the people, by the people, for the people. respectfully; Marc W. Stauffer

While I appreciate your opinion, Marc, I have to disagree. When you enter public office, be it a planning commission, town council or whatever you are a private citizen doing the publics work. The public has a right to know that everything is on the "up-and-up". I don't view these new laws as a state agency doing my job. I view them as a state agency making me better able to do my job. How can you call out a public official for conflict of interest when you don't know that the conflict exists?

Marshall makes an interesting case for Total Information Awareness. Perhaps the Bush Administration should have access to transcripts of all our cell phone conversations. After all, how can they call out a citizen for being a terrorist if they don't already know that person is a terrorist, right?

Seriously, SB 10 was just a poorly-planned scheme of one-upsmanship on the part of the 2007 Democratic leadership. They did a lot of great things in 2007, but jumping on the "ethics" wave and passing a smattering of ill-thought-out rules and restrictions didn't really do much for ethics, but it did apparently have an effect on rural communities.

So congratulations, 2007 Leadership: A lobbyist can no longer buy legislative staff a beer... but they CAN cut a $50,000 check to a campaign.

Is there anyone who actually thinks that SB 10 had a discernable effect on public policy?

If there are plenty of ethics rules in place already, what do you think motivated the Leg to craft this policy?

A collection of ethics violations that came to light in the 2006 campaign cycle from Republican legislators such as Dalto, Scott, Minnis, and others.

The Democrats spoke out so hard against those violations that when they won they found themselves in the position of actually having to pass some kind of "ethics reform."

But of course we can't limit campaign contributions without passing a ballot measure... so to avoid looking like a paper tiger, they passed as many irrelevant rules as humanly possible.

SB 10, was created in the sterile environment of the law commission with no input from the public it would effect. It was then introduced (Courtney, Brown, Merkley, Morrisette) as an "emergency bill" and it subsequently ran through the house and senate like a locomotive. Local Government, or for that matter the communities that voted to opt out of the original ethics legislation in 1973, that this replaced had no opportunity to comment on this. The lobby groups that were supposed to inform county and local government that this was happening rolled over and got a bad case of laryngitis. So we were surprised by the unveiling of the new 244 on March 5th. When pressing local Legislators about this, they informed us that they were under enormous pressure to vote for this. To vote against this meant somehow you were not for ethics (especially in the light of the Hawaii trips on beer lobby money).Those that have been filling out the SEI form since the 70's have as well, been greeted with a new, expanded form, that includes personal information that the law mandates the OGEC (Oregon Government Ethics Commission) post on the web by Jan. 1, 2010 (244.290 section 6). Once again the State Legislature has used an elephant gun to kill a mosquito and the collateral damage is considerable, especially to rural communities. I am all for relevant info being available about my interests to those i serve, but not to those that I do not serve. Its a "one size fits all" law that takes no consideration of local values, and that just does not work in such a diverse state as Oregon.And, by the by, no, I am not a proponent of the Iraq war but I am a proponent of crying out when the State nails our presious local resources for something we did not ask for. --Marc

Why again does BlueOregon, Courtney & Merkley need to know the names of relatives (mother, father, siblings, sons, daughter, grandkids) of elected and volunteer public officials? For ethical reasons? Aren't essential rights granted to all citizens? Was there a clause in the Constitution I missed that said public officials aren't granted the same rights as private citizens? What limit, if any, would you suggest citizens be 'publicly scrutinized"? Even under the guies of "ethics".

Under SB 10 a son or daughter of a public official who dates someone who parents "may" have a special interest in a City at some time (general contractor)cannot accept a movie ticket?

See League of Oregon Cities Q&A last item(http://www.orcities.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Headlines/New+Ethics+RulesJan30.pdf&tabid=798&mid=1588)

Why is that unethical behavior? Why does that need to be 'scrutinized' and banned?

Critics are acting as if public officials have never been been publicly scrutinized prior to SB 10.

Rather than cry "misinformation" about misreported actions by these public officials, perhaps you should try and listen to their concerns and understand.

From the pro-SB10 comments I have read here, I guess the ends justify the means for the Oregon Progressive movement.

Scary indeed.

"LT, Didn't the announcement from Courtney & Merkley clarify that disclosure of the addresses of adult relatives not living with the Public Servants was NOT part of the new etheics rules?"

This is about perception. If people like Marc or annoyed think the reporting requirements were not clear when they decided to resign (how many resigned before the Courtney/Merkley announcement) then there was something wrong with the process.

LT, i assure you that I am reasonably versed on the law, having read it more times than I care to count....before I resigned. Yes , there is a LOT of emotion attached to this.Lest we sterilize this and make it inhuman, i believe the hardest thing I have ever had to do was look into the eyes of the citizens that were at the planning commission that night and resign. They all were very supportive and went home and wrote their reps. that, however does not help them conduct business with the city.

Collectively and aggregately there was close to 50+ years experience on the Commission. i doubt that will be replaced in our small community. Was there something wrong with the process.....just the way this bill was designed and presented. they broke all the recognized leadership rules when they designed this.

They tried to paint lipstick on a bulldog, and call it ethics, now they just have a mad bulldog. Now all those that were at the painting party have their name attached to it and are trying to cover their collective backsides so careers aren't ruined as a result of this. . --Marc

Marshall Collins,

Your disagreement to Marc rings hollow, very, very hollow.

Fill out the Economic Interset statement in it's entirety, (it can be found here: http://www.oregon.gov/OGEC/docs/seio1_sample.doc)scan it, and then post it on this website. Then live by the rules of "ethics" as defined by the State - monetary limit on dinners, halt activites by which people in your household recieved gifts (Like those evil movie tickets Annoyed stated), THEN you can disagree. Until then, your disagreement is both hollow and shallow.

Marc and the other official who resigned place actions before words. If you think public officials weren't on the "up-n-up" until SB10 then you need to really get out a bit. Perhaps travel to Enterprise and visit a council meeting or planning commission meeting. You'll get a real sense of open government without the need for ethical "reform". Beside Wallowa County is one of the most beautiful counties in the nation - just don't stay. :)

The way Courtney, Brown, Merkley, Morrisette introduced and passed the bill of this nature without public comment is very telling, and unethical of elected officials.

It would be nice to actually think, digest and respond to Marc's comment rather than through our Iraq War references ( Glen HD28).

Son of a Public Official

P.S. Does Courtney, Brown, Merkley, Morrisette really need to know the interest rate of parent's debt?

I guess instead of a Yes or No response I'll get a war commentary on the interest rate of the national debt....

SisterBeav - a free lesson in government and ethics: It isn't the job of a planning commission to determine if they like or don't like a development. Government isn't supposed to operate like that - that would be UNethical. Their job is to determine if the developer followed current laws and policies. If the developer played by the rules, they have no "right" to deny the application. Public officials have to play by the rules just like developers have to play by the rules.

LT - these public officials knew the reporting requirements much better than Courtney & Merkley, let alone their "announcement". The reports of "misinformation" are a red herring. 99% of all the gripes are about the actual reporting requirements. Comments from 1% of the officials have been propagated as "see they are misinformed." Trust me they are NOT misinformed. These officials have been given legal advice by their City attorneys who practice municipal law. These public officials know the law as well or better than anyone else in the State and anyone on this website. Marc's comments alone on this discussion prove it. More importantly, their actions prove it. These officials didn't resign until they read the law in its entirety, seeked legal advice, and then weighted this information against their duties as a public official. Those who think these are just knee-jerk reactions by misinformed rural officials need to get out more. Have faith in your fellow humans. The vast majority of people are ethical and don't see their political opponents as enemies.

Also, information propogated by the Legislator is actually misleading. For example the law states that these forms must be posted on the web by 2010. The legislature has stated these won't be posted on the web, when they actually meant to say "yet" at the end. However, guess what - they don't get a say now that it's the law. All it will take is an NGO to get a court to direct the State to post these immediately. The word "by" means nothing. If they can do it - then a judge can order it done immediately. All it would take is a few hours to post 5,500 forms via the web. What's stopping them from posting them? If it's ok in 2010, why not now? Why publicly state they won't, even when the law requires it? Again their actions speak louder than words - just as these public officials who resigned actions speak louder than their words.

Why stop at elected official and planning commissions? If SB10 is so great and creates an "open and transparent" government why not require all public staff to conform to this law. I have seen more unethical behavior and bending of rules by public staff than by planning or elected officials. In that same vein, (up-n-up Marshall), why only list an official family? Most monetary and non-monetary unethical behavior stems from public servants to thier friends not their family. Why don’t Courtney and Merkley require these officials to list their friend’s names?

Lastly, SB10 violates Home Rule and are sticking their hands in the general funds of all local cities within Oregon. That's not only wrong but abhorrent. We should expect better from highly paid elected legislators.

A few points in response:

Kevin: Many appointed public officials file Statements of Economic Interest, not just those on planning commissions. I am one of those appointed officials who've been filing for years (state government).

It doesn't help matters that a number of the disclosure requests are not clearly worded (there are now quarterly disclosure forms in addition to the annual form), such as "Identify the five most significant sources of income received by you or a member of your household in the 2007 calendar year." Five? What if I only have three sources of income--do I list the guitar I sold on eBay, too? Because that might be the fourth most significant source last year. Or is that not significant? Does "significant" signal a dollar threshold? The law doesn't allow for a floor. And does that mean sources of income for me or for a member of my household? Both? Combined?

Yes, I had to list the names of my adult children (who even live out of state), parents, siblings, spouses of siblings (and all the in-laws that fall into those categories, too). No addresses required, although those are only a Google-click away.

Yes, JHL is correct: the "yet" is missing from the disclaimer about not posting this information online. The law sets the 2010 deadline to put this information online.

Marc: SB 10 was NOT a product of the Oregon Law Commission -- the Commission was given a ethics law overhaul assignment in the 2005 session, it deliberated for 2 years, and it proposed legislation for the 2007 session. After Maui-gate, the legislature jumped over that the OR Law Commission process, created its own bills using bits and pieces (and ignoring many) of the OLC recommendations. The Commission had time to work through unintended consequences of suggested changes and weigh out the competing policies. I believe there would've been less outcry (and fewer surprises) if more weight and respect had been given to the OLC's work.

Annoyed brings up maybe a greater issue in the long run: the gift limits (including food/beverage, which is REALLY problematic) and entertainment ban that extend so far that my child can't accept a roller-skating outing from certain members of our community, and backyard barbecues are at issue. That's not hyperbole. I think a lot of folks haven't learned about all the changes to the gift limits yet, and that's the next shoe to drop.

SEI Filer - you are correct. The LOC linked Annoyed posted is an interesting read. I can't imagine how extending an entertainment ban to public official's children foster's ethics.

The State appears to be changing the definition of ethics. Ethics used to be what a person does when confronted with a 'momnent of truth'. Their actions and decision showed their ethics. Generally unethical behavior has always been caught. Now, under the guise of ethics, the State is trying to eliminate the potential for a 'moment of truth' by banning officials children from accepting outings from certain friends, boy/girlfriends based on their parent's career? Where's the ACLU on this one?

It's interesting that pro SB10 people's reaction is that these public officials may have been misinformed (Courtney and Merkley). However, when these officials education people what SB10 clearly says, it's cast off as 'tweaks' needed in the law and/or all laws need tweaks in subsequent legislative sessions.

These aren't tweaks, these are significant philosphocial differneces in redefining ethics and publicly reporting private information. A Maui-gate knee-jerk reaction?

Public officials get harassed enough by the public. I now plenty who tire of the constant battering they get from the public who think that government "doesn't do anything right" and/or government "doesn't do enough" (commentary of this site always falls into these categories) so they enter the private sector. All SB10 will do is drive good people from government positions and will do nothing to foster ethical behavior.

Again, I ask does Courtney & Merkley and the "public" really need to know the interest rate on my parents debts over $1,000? What philosophical and/or political motiviation does a person need to actually write that into law and into the SEI form?

SEI filer; I stand corrected. Although I was lead to believe (news releases, LOC, etc..) that SB10 was the Law Commission's,after further fact finding on my own, I have found that, in fact, it bears little or no resemblance to the work the law commission did. The fact that some legislators are trying to hang this mess on the law commissions door instead of just accepting responsibility is shameful.My apologies for not doing my homework and Thank you for your correction!

there are now 175 officials that have resigned and I received information that indicated approximately 1000 "further information required" forms were sent out by the OGEC to those that did not complete the form in its entirety or improperly (we will see where that number officially lands).

I do believe further fallout is on the way. Again, I will ask those that are upset by all of this to "go tell it on the mountain" and ask people to write the Governor and their legislators. Thanks! ---Marc

One last note (though this thread is probably done)...

I can't beleive that candidates actually bringhis up while campaigning. I mean to say, as an example of a good thing they did. Yeah, right.

Son of a Public Official is correct... we need to reexamine the definition of "ethics." Ethics has ceased to be the passage of well-thought-out policy in the public interest and has become something you apply for through paperwork.

It amazes me that a public official who passed a useless (though destructive) bill without any forethought or significant public input can use it to campaign on "ethics". To me, that kind of haphazard public policy runs quite contrary to ethics.

I am not familiar with the bill, but I will know about it very soon. For years the Republican-controlled legislature essentially destroyed the Government Standards and Practices Office (not quite correct name). When the session began there was one staff person and probably a secretary. I am aware of conflicts of interest that were reported and the staff did not have time to process them. Marc may be correct, the bill may need revision. I'm just saying that I've lived in two Oregon counties for 38 years, and I've seen a lot of corruption first hand from local attorneys representing developers who were able to manipulate elected officials and planning commissioners. What level of accountability does Oregon need? Let's make sure that gets accomplished in the next session.

This seems to be a bad bad bill in its drafting not in its intent. It is just another example of electeds passing legislation for their re-elections or elections to higher office instead of "listening" to what the bills implications will be and all of the consequences.

I am not a big fan of lobbyists but I would be they probably tried to tell these "above average" legislators about the consequences and how far reaching the impacts would go - but these "above average" legislators rarely listen when their elections may be on the line. Never let policy get in the way of a good sound bite on the campaign trail. Lets not for get they had to be saved from themselves....can you really buy their vote with a lunch or dinner? If so then we really do need new elected leadership.

Courtney and Merkley and pretty condescending to assert that much of the anger is due to misinformation. "Oh, those stupid rural folks just don't understand." My sense if that they understand quite well, and they're justifiably angry.

Beyond the disclosure forms, I hope the legislature also revisits the absurd entertainment ban. It is really unworkable since "public official" applies to every public employee in the state. Seriously.

This ethics bill is yet another example of those in the I-5 Coordidor forgetting that the rest of Oregon exists.

The implications of this bill on rural towns and issues is staggering.

For example; in Elgin the entire City Council, including the Mayor has resigned from office.

Everyone on the City Council was a volunteer as was the Mayor. This is the same group of people who in recent months have been working very hard to keep a small rural health clinic in Elgin open after a round of budget cuts put its future in jeaopardy. Now because of an overzealous law all the hard work that has gone into keeping the doors of this clinic open hangs in the balance.

The only conflict these people face is in making the decision to run for office and thereby serve their community OR to save their spare time for their family, friends and careers.

The realities of life in rural Oregon are not those of urban Oregon.

Greetings all -

I got a nastygram back from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission telling me that my SEI was incomplete. As an FYI, the following is a copy of my response and I hope it provides the information they want, since I really cannot afford to spend $5K on a civil fine right now.

Stu Rasmussen

<begin> 417 N. Water Street Silverton, Oregon 97381

Oregon Government Ethics Commission Salem, Oregon 97302-1544

Monday, April 28, 2008

RE: Request for Additional Information

I have received your notice of insufficiency and Request for Additional Information regarding my Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) form filed with your office on April 9, 2008.

You enclosed a copy of Page 3 of my completed form and a checklist of items which may be insufficient. The notice you sent has none of the boxes checked requesting additional data, so I am providing the following explanatory material regarding the entirety of page 3 of the SEI. I do this to assure myself that you have all the required information and to avoid a potential $5,000 civil penalty for incomplete submission.

Regarding Question 2 on page 3 - "Sources of Income": I am self-employed as an owner/manager of the Palace Theatre in Silverton from which I receive wages and occasional dividends. Although in Question 1-B on page two I listed other business activities with which I am associated, none of these produced any net income for me in 2007. I also listed myself as a director of BogusTrivia Ltd. in answering Question 1-A on page two. Although my associates and myself have great expectations for the eventual success of this venture now that our Coin-Operated, Multi-Player Trivia Skill Game product is entering the market, this enterprise also provided no income for me in 2007.

Regarding Question 3 on page 3 - "Members of Household" I have listed only my Significant Other (aka "My Sweet Patootie"), the lovely and talented Ms. Victoria Sage as she was the only other member of my immediate household 18 years of age or older during 2007. I did not include our dependents in 2007 - Sophie, Libby, Lucy, Scooter, Beelzebub and Weasel, as they were all less than 18 years old. If your office considered this to be an incomplete entry due to my overlooking the relative maturity factor of cat years/human years of 5:1 then please let me know before your Friday May 2nd deadline so I may appropriately amend my 2007 Statement of Economic Interest form.

Sadly, Beelzebub passed away due to causes related to cancer on January 7, 2008 and his staunch friend and companion Sophie left this world on March 21. (I am crying as I write this - they were very special friends. Thank you so much for prying into these delicate matters and re-opening fresh wounds.)

Regarding Question 4 on page 3 - "Relatives (not a member of the household)" I have answered this question only to the best of my knowledge of this matter. My honest and forthright answer is "None Known". My father was briefly married and subsequently divorced prior to meeting and marrying my mother, from which arrangement I am a by-product. I didn't even know of this first marriage until after both my parents had passed away as nothing was ever spoken of it in my presence. Since the SEI form is attested to and sworn by me to be accurate under threat of up to a $5,000 civil penalty, and since neglecting to report the existence of an unknown step-brother or step-sister would technically be a false statement by omission, I have answered as stated. If you have knowledge of any brothers or sisters of mine out there, please tell them I said 'Howdy' - and also mention to them that I would expect them to help pay the civil penalty.

Regarding Question 5 on page 3 - "Real Property" I have listed the two pieces of real estate in which I (or a member of my household) hold an interest, which are located within the geographic boundaries of the public entity I serve. Even though the SEI instructions say that I am not required to list my principal residence, I did so just to be sure of complying with all the disclosure requirements.

I hope this information is helpful to your office in determining whether my SEI is complete or not. Please express my gratitude to and admiration for the members of the Oregon legislative assemblies who have, with these new SEI requirements for unpaid public elected and appointed officials, continued in their fine tradition of complete disconnection from rationality or common sensibility. Until now I was concerned that their brilliant decision in a previous session that 'School speed zones are effective 24 hours a day, 365 days a year' was only a glitch - My Faith in Government is Restored! Hallelujah!

Stu Rasmussen City Councilor City of Silverton, Oregon <end>

<hr/>