Jan 29, 2007
On Ethical Appointments
Scott Mooneyham - The Insider

The state's new ethics law has produced an unexpected result.  
 
It seems some members of state boards and commissions are choosing to resign rather than disclose their financial interests as required by new economic disclosure forms.  
 
The forms, due in March, require members of state boards to report stocks, real estate, business holdings and liabilities over $10,000, although members do not have to list exact values.  
The requirement is intended to ensure that anyone serving on a policy-related board discloses information that could result in a conflict of interest.  
 
Dozens of other states already have such requirements.  
 
Nonetheless, trustees from at least three community colleges and one university board have decided to resign rather than disclose their financial interests.  
 
Around the Legislative Building, where the wide-ranging ethics law was approved last year, there's been some chatter that the resignations might be the first of many.  
 
Some legislators and others believe a wave of resignations would be a bad thing, that this unintended consequence will make it harder to fill appointments to state boards and commissions.  
Perhaps they're looking at it the wrong way.  
 
Instead of creating a problem, the economic disclosure forms might result in some sorely needed diversity -- of background and thought -- on some boards and commissions.  
 
If the governor and legislative leaders are unable to fill policy and professional licensing boards with well-heeled political donors, let's cheer, not wring our hands.  
 
Too often, these boards become good ol' boys clubs that fail to reflect the full interests of the stakeholders concerned about the policies that they are enacting.  
 
Look at the problems, cited in recent published reports, associated with the board that oversees the state's Clean Water Management Trust Fund. A little more enlightened thinking from some board members who aren't heavily involved in political giving might mean that fewer see their role as trying to bring home the bacon to their local districts.  
 
The unethical behavior by the former head of the state's electrolysis examiners licensing board provides another example of a board that failed to understand its role and duties.  
Certainly, many boards do require significant commitments of time and energy from their members, with few perks or rewards in exchange.  
And if, in fact, seats on some boards do become more difficult to fill, government leaders may need to consider changes, but not to the state's new ethics law.  
 
Instead, the changes should focus on the boards and their appointment procedures.  
 
Some questions state leaders should ask: Does the state really need all of the advisory and policy-related boards and commissions that it now has? Are there overlapping functions performed by many of these boards?  
 
Establishing fairer, more open appointment procedures for all state boards and commissions might also increase public interest in serving.  
Until that happens, there's no reason to get worried about a sudden upset to the political patronage status quo.