Citizens who want to understand the potential conflicts between private and public interests in the State House aren’t just handicapped by disclosures that don’t disclose much.
There are also the disclosures that don’t exist.
A loophole in state ethics law means that lawmakers and executive branch officials who leave office between one year’s disclosure filing deadline and the next year’s filing deadline don’t have to file a disclosure for their last year, or portion of a year, in state government.
An example: Rep. Joseph Bruno, R-Raymond, left office at the end of 2004. Ethics Commission staffer Cyndi Phillips had this response when asked for a copy of Bruno’s 2004 financial disclosure:
“Unfortunately, we do not have a disclosure form for Sen. Bruno for 2004 because he would not have had to report until February 2005, when he no longer was in office.”
The disclosure law’s wording is at fault, said Jonathan Wayne, the commission’s executive director.
“It’s written so each legislator has the obligation to do that,” said Wayne. By the filing deadline for Bruno’s last year in office, “Joe Bruno was not a legislator. So under the way the statute was written, we wouldn’t expect to receive a statement for Mr. Bruno in 2004, which was his last year of service.”
It’s the same situation for executive branch officials who leave their jobs. There is no disclosure form on file, for example, for the last month and a half that Kurt Adams served as chairman of the Public Utilities Commission in 2008.
“Kurt Adams was not required to file a statement because he left his position in May 2008 — 11 months before the reporting deadline,” said Wayne.
Wayne wrote that statement in May of 2010, adding that he and other members of the Ethics Commission staff believed this to be a loophole in the law.
“The commission staff plans to propose some amendments to [the law], including instituting a reporting requirement for former employees,” wrote Wayne in an email.
“I’m not sure exactly what the proposed requirement will be, but it could be something along the lines of requiring managerial employees to file a statement for the current year upon the termination of their employment.”
That change has yet to be proposed by the Ethics Commission, but in December 2011, Wayne said it was an option the commission would consider for the next full legislative session in 2013.
How about disclosure filings for our governors?
Bruno’s leadership was suspect in the 90’s when he had to look up whether or not Libby Mitchell could enter a polling area with a large campaign button displayed on her lapel. Perhaps he was scared of losing money for his organization at that time!
Does Mayor Loopholer approve???
Are you trying to be snide about the current Governor?
“Mayor loopholer” not major…………….. I will vote “again” for our Great Governor Paul Lepage!!!
Is it a loophole if it was put there on purpose by those who benefit from it…or is that just sleazy behavior???
Great job, Naomi Schalit and John Christie!
Another state disclosure loophole that needs a remedy. The voting public deserves to know all the facts, for anyone in an elected or appointed position of power.
That much as been confirmed by the revelations from MTA, Maine Bond Bank, etc.
In Bangor there are plenty of Loopholes that allow Council members to contract with the City and “PROFIT” Personally!!!! These LOOPHOLERS write the Laws with LOOPHOLES in them, to benifit themselves and their friends… When asked why someone runs for office, the answer should be for the loopholes of course…
that is premeditated thievery. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that kind of government lack of public conscience. That kind of behaviour needs to be treated with forced compensation back to the budgeting process. I’m apalled.
Why isn’t LePage and our dear Republican-controlled legislature currecting this important issue? Oh yeah, because they’re too busy worrying about rent assistance “double-dipping”. I have a feeling one is a little more serious and far-reaching than the other.
Stop being so short sighted. Are you really naive enough to believe this has only been going on for the past year? I guess this wasn’t important enough for every other legislative session or Governor in office to ‘fix’ otherwise it would have been by now.
One argument for the action is to knowingly have a way in
which to solve a problem that no one else is capable of. So that by running for
office (albeit campaign promises) then attaining office the process of awarding
oneself grants is the only way they see as to best serve the people (us) they
have sworn to serve. Otherwise, it’s just doing the Lord’s work as usual.
Albeit securing grants for our friends and colleagues.
In that way there is no need to ever question the authenticity of providing for
and doing the peoples work. The need for disclosure is purely moot. They have
sworn and pledged to represent the people to the best of their own blessed ability
as provided for within the state constitution.
Wow…politicians taking advantage of a loophole. I’m shocked! Next thing you know, they’ll be taking
“fully legal campaign contributions” from lobbyists!