Editorials
Our View: State can do better on legislative disclosure
Interestingly, very little public discussion has taken place in the week since the Center for Public Integrity released its 2009 report on U.S. states’ financial disclosure rankings for state legislators.
Minnesota rated poorly, actually falling a spot from CPI’s last survey (in 2006) into 40th place. On the CPI report card, that rates an “F.”
The report reminds us that disclosure laws differ greatly from state to state, with the best of them (Louisiana, Washington and Hawaii were awarded the only “A” grades) ensuring that citizens have ample information on elected officials at which to make informed judgements on conflict of interest issues. Minnesota is one of 20 states with a failing grade, having passed on opportunities to strengthen disclosure rules for at least the past three years.
For now at least, Minnesota only requires that legislators disclose the names of any securities they own, without valuations, along with non-homesteaded real estate holdings and pari-mutuel gambling interests.
CPI has reported on disclosure issues since 1999, a year in which Minnesota fared only slightly better (35th place) than it does today. Rankings are based on a wide-ranging 43-question survey that includes queries on public access to information on legislators’ employment, investments, personal finances, property holdings and extra-curricular activities beyond the Legislature. State statutes and disclosure forms are studied and state ethics officers are interviewed. The survey, then, is comprehensive and thoughtful.
If voters were parents and states were students, we’d react with interest to the appearance of an “F” on any report card. In most subjects, we all know that Minnesota ranks quite high. We’re recognized as one of the most livable states in the union. We’ve got major league sports, excellent schools, the biggest mall, great zoos, outdoor opportunities, etc., etc. How, then, should we react to a failing grade on disclosure laws after having failed to address this issue adequately in the past?
Are Minnesotans becoming too pleased with our state’s reputation for clean elections and comparatively clean politicians? Perhaps we are ripe for scandal, in part due to a complacency over inadequate disclosure requirements.
- Editorials
-
-
Our View: Health care debate is not over
Why it matters
A vast majority of Americans believe health care must be reformed. -
Our View: A good state for women's athletics
There's a lot of prominent college women's sports events going on in Minnesota, not least of which is the Division III "frozen four."
-
Our View: Drinking enforcement must be fair
A plan to curb drunk driving that would lead investigators back to bars has merit if it can be proactive instead of reactive and use carrots instead of sticks.
-
Our View: Cut's costs exceed savings
Why It Matters
Taxpayers will pay more to treat the mentally ill as crisis center closes. -
Our View: Everyone is important in census count
Minnesota’s representation, funding and national voice, is on the line with the 2010 U.S. census.
-
Our View: Library plan touches on dilemma
For many, it was a jaw-dropping proposal. The city of Mankato has a tentative plan to reduce its funding to the Blue Earth County library and the Summit Center by 50 percent.
-
Our View: Students must be the top priority
Why it matters
Allegations of sexual misconduct by school employees bring focus to the need to
protect students. -
Our View: School athletics model may need work
Why it matters
School sports will come under increasing scrutiny with tight budgets. -
Our View: Students' efforts aid community
The students behind Brand New Image are great role models.
-
Our View: Legislature, governor win one for the people
The Minnesota Legislature and Gov. Tim Pawlenty deserve credit for coming to agreement on a bonding bill in a truly unprecedented timeline.
- More Editorials Headlines
-
