Lawmakers' Disclosure Forms to Go Online; Financial Statements Excluded

Article excerpt

Byline: David Hill, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A new ethics law will require state lawmakers next year to post certain disclosure forms online, but it won't do nearly as much as the law's sponsors originally intended.

The General Assembly passed a bill this year that will allow public online access to forms on which legislators and their spouses detail potential conflicts of interest and places of work.

However, there will be no online posting of financial disclosures. House lawmakers stripped that requirement out of the bill largely because of privacy concerns. Lawmakers also removed language that would have required online disclosure by executive branch and county officials.

The bill's supporters say it is still a strong step in the right direction, as the public has long had to visit Annapolis to view any of the records in person.

Some lawmakers say the bill is an unfinished product that was rushed and will require heavy revision in the future.

I think we need to go back to the drawing board and work on it between now and the next session, said Sen. Nancy Jacobs, Harford Republican, who would have preferred to wait for consensus on a wider-ranging law. This is what happens when you push something through without time for it to be fully vetted.

The bill was crafted largely in response to ethics violations by Sen. Ulysses Currie, who was acquitted last year on bribery charges after he received nearly $250,000 from Lanham-based Shoppers Food Warehouse for work that often included representing the grocery chain in front of state officials.

Mr. Currie, Prince George's Democrat, escaped conviction by arguing that his failure to disclose the income on ethics forms was an honest mistake. He was censured by the Senate in February.

A Senate panel set out to propose legislation that would give the public better access to suchoversights and make officials more cognizant of the need for ethics disclosures.

The Senate passed a bill largely in line with the panel's wishes, but House members worried that making some information available online - such as stock holdings and debts - could potentially open the door for identity theft. …