I appreciate the clarification above. My one mis-statement that I discovered (due to the concerns expressed in the Times) upon reviewing the county’s audio recording of the admittedly strenuous hearing certainly contributed to the misunderstanding. However, I must reiterate that the Ethics Comm. is not proposing to expand the definition of relative in regard to financial disclosure requirements (although the state does require more stringent standards), but only in regard to conflict of interest rules; that is, an official, employee, or appointed board member should refrain from voting or acting in most situations that may provide a known economic benefit to a “qualified relative,” which we expanded to include in-laws and dependent relatives in addition to the state’s definition which was for immediate family, parents, and siblings. The reason I added “and their spouses” was precisely because of the increased commonality of “step”-relatives.

The Ethics Commission does take into account public comment and complaints and this is such an example, as the state allows and even encourages the counties to modify the law to their own particular needs and circumstances as long as counties do not weaken the state-mandated minimum standards.

I appreciate the intelligent discussion of this important law, which, at the county level, has been two years in the making, and, at the state level, passsed without a single no vote in both houses.

Once a final bill is produced, the Commissioners will establish a public hearing date for public comment.

Please contact me (see our web page on the county’s website) if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you,
Michael Burns, Chair
CCEC

As this article was titled– as a news analysis– our chief concern was how the proposed new rules would affect the willingness of local candidates to put themselves, and their families, out into the public arena to run for public office.

As Mr. Burns told the Commissioners, the proposed local ethics code expanded upon the state-mandated code to include in-laws and other relatives. Our analysis dicussed the potential pitfalls of expanding coverage to such extended family members, especially in light of today’s realities of distant family relations.

We appreciate Mr. Burns’ clarification of his mis-statements at the worksession on some of the extent of application of the proposed rules to unrelated businesses. That should go a long way toward alleviating concerns about possible intrusiveness into business activities unrelated to government activities that could discourage otherwise highly qualified candidates from seeking office.

Our article did not address the matters commented upon by a reader, and we do not share that commenter’s views. (We try to allow reasonably civil comments even if we do not agree with them.)

As the article noted, the arduous work performed by Mr. Burns and his bipartisan task force to review these difficult matters was a good-faith effort to address past problems in the county ethics code and to bring the county law into compliance with new state mandates. For that, all citizens owe Mr. Burns a debt of gratitude.

There is a provision to include immediate family members, siblings, in-laws and dependent relatives, and their spouses, in the definition of “qualified relative” in the area of conflicts of interest; that is, an official, employee, or Board member should refrain from voting or acting in most situations that may provide a known economic benefit to a qualified relative.

The new law mandated by the state does require elected officials and candidates to list co-owners (relatives or not) of real property (real estate). I mis-spoke during the hearing and implied that was required for all business property, for which I will inform the Commissioners and correct the record as best I can. I apologize to all hearing attendees for this mistake.

The new law also requires elected officals and candidates to report their (and only their) ownership in investments in private entities (companies) and stock in public companies, and any immediate family members’ interests in business entities and other sources of earned (as opposed to investment) income.

I was never an officer of CLUA or ARCA. I am a member of CLUA, and try to be an informed citizen by attending various hearings and meetings. I am a past Democrat Club Board member (Treasurer 2004-2008), and was when I was appointed to the Ethics Commission.

I am not a lawyer and stated so during the hearing.

My term on the Ethics Comm. has officially expired, and I am willing to be replaced. I have stayed on due to request and to guide the new ethics law through the arduous process of adoption. If anyone feels I should be removed or not suited for the position please inform County Commissioners who have power of appointment.