Last modified: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:18 AM PDT From the Editor's Desk: Keeping family off the books By Pat Caldwell Nothing more clearly highlights the gulf between good intentions and wrong-headed government practice than the spat that erupted during the spring in many of Oregon’s rural communities over the state’s ethics laws. Many may recall that dozens of local government elected leaders — from city council members and planning commission members — stepped down from their posts because they did not want to follow Oregon’s new ethic disclosure rules. At first glance the resignations seems to be a clear-cut example of elected leaders in some rural township with something to hide. Why step down before an ethics law if you are on the up and up? Well, the issue, as usual, is a little more complicated than that. What many elected leaders were upset about was the stipulation in the new conflict-of-interest law regarding family members. Some type of conflict-of-interest law for elected leaders has been part of the Oregon legislative playing field for some time. For years public leaders were required to file a statement of economic interests that revealed an individual’s source of income and other business interests. In the past, however, a number of communities were exempt from the mandate, but in 2007 lawmakers in Salem decided to enlarge the law to compel the same elected leaders to name all of their adult relatives. So, a whole bunch just up and quit. Or, more precisely, they refused to send in their disclosure statements by the deadline set by the state. The obvious intent of the expanded aspects of the law, like the edict itself, is to keep government as transparent as possible. That can be a full-time job in some areas of Eastern Oregon, and there are some officials who believe firmly that the less the people know the better. That’s why ethics laws are so fundamental to the health of democracy.  Some Eastern Oregon politicians have already used the resignations as yet another way to point out the divide between rural and urban Oregon, but, at the end of the day, the argument really comes down to one question: How much should voters know about their elected representatives? It’s unfortunate for those who believe such laws are an invasion of privacy because the truth of the matter is, in a democracy, the books are open when it comes to elected leaders. But what about their families? That is a good question, and one all can probably relate too. We tend to separate what we do at work with the roles we take on at home. Work is business. Home is the family. They are very different. To some extent, a valid argument can be made that delving into the personal names and backgrounds of some politician’s brother or cousin goes too far. On the other side of the fence, though, a good debate can be kicked off by pointing out, perhaps, that cousin or brother is defrauding local taxpayers or up to some other nefarious deeds. That scenario is not out of the realm of possibility, either in Eastern Oregon or America. There is nothing wrong with politicians, locally or otherwise, signing on to a conflict-of-interest document if they are elected leaders. But there probably should be some kind of provision whereby family members are kept, as much as possible, off the books. Other states, for example, carry laws similar to Oregon’s in their statutes, except in some cases relatives’ names are not listed. In more ways than one, it is a difficult situation because in our way of government the prevailing attitude is government is completely open. Yet, one can sympathize, up to a point, with a local politician who wants to keep his daughter’s name out of a disclosure statement. As much as liberty, Americans like their privacy. Except when it comes to elected leaders, that motif is a good one sanctified throughout our 200-plus year history. The troubling aspect to becoming elected leaders is the amount of visibility and scrutiny one will encounter. The ethics laws are good ones, generally, and designed with good intentions. Minor modifications will probably make them stronger, not weaker. Pat Caldwell is the editor of the Argus Observer. He can be contacted at PatC@argusobserver.com