Transparency

An informed electorate is the essential basis for any working democracy, as we have argued many times before, which is why we anticipated, with interest, the Sullivan County Legislature’s decision regarding financial disclosure for the board members of agencies that are publicly funded. The proposal to require such disclosure had been sparked by concerns that groups like the Sullivan County Partnership for Economic Development may make boardroom decisions that run counter to the public interest but provide financial gains to the people who sit on their boards. Unfortunately, no decision to require disclosure was made, and it is not clear whether the issue will be addressed again in the future.

We actually agree with Legislator Leni Binder’s observation that, in a small county like Sullivan, most of the decisions that come before any business promotion organization will have some influence on the businesses of some or all of the sitting members. To that extent, a solution like mandating recusal whenever the business of a member might benefit from a decision to any degree would probably be unworkable.

But these things are a matter of degree.

There is a big difference between mandating recusal and making information available, and taxpayers certainly have a right to know how extensive conflicts of interests might be, and to make their views known to their elected representatives when the potential bias appears to be extreme enough. Requiring financial disclosure, combined with voluntary recusal, would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

Indeed, we gather there is already a voluntary recusal system in place. The problem with voluntary recusal is, of course, that the greater the potential conflict of interest, the more biased any individual is likely to be in judging whether they ought to recuse themselves or not. The pitfalls of voluntary recusal can be seen in the recent ruling on a deepwater drilling moratorium in the wake of the BP disaster. There, a judge with substantial financial interests in deepwater drilling companies failed to recuse himself—and rendered a decision that bewildered and enraged the general public and was of substantial benefit to the companies in which he owned stock.

We believe that a requirement for public disclosure of financial information would tend to make the voluntary recusal system work better by bringing the pressures of public feedback and peer judgment to bear on board members faced with making fair judgments about their own conflicts of interest. Of course, financial disclosure didn’t work in the case of the deepwater drilling judge. But we think members of local business development agencies and the politicians who appoint and provide financing to them are likely to be a lot more responsive to public opinion than judges, who are insulated from the electorate.

Whether it’s an elected body, a body appointed by the elected government, or an agency that receives substantial public funding, transparency is more than a matter of satisfying vulgar curiosity. It is the foundation of a functional democracy. There are occasionally valid reasons for withholding information from the public, but they are the rare exception, not the rule. We are disappointed with the legislature’s failure to reach the same conclusion last Thursday. We gather the issue is not necessarily closed, and we hope it will take up this question again in the not too distant future.

Also in this issue:

• Economic casualties of the shale

Dr. Punnybone

Under Cover Cop