State Gets "F" On Financial Disclosure Regs

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Oklahoma was among 21 states getting an ``F'' for their public disclosure requirements for their governors in a national survey. The state ranked 35th among the 50 states

Thursday, July 19th 2007, 10:59 am

By: News On 6

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Oklahoma was among 21 states getting an ``F'' for their public disclosure requirements for their governors in a national survey. The state ranked 35th among the 50 states in rankings released Wednesday by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, D.C.

Oklahoma drew poor marks for failing to require more specific information on public disclosure forms and not requiring information on spouses.

Washington was the only state to get an ``A'' in the survey and four states _ Idaho, Michigan, Utah and Vermont _ scored zero. Eleven states got a ``D,'' nine got a ``C'' and eight got a ``B.''

``The state Ethics Commission and the Legislature set disclosure standards in Oklahoma, and Gov. Henry supports tough standards for all public officials,'' said Paul Sund, spokesman for Gov. Brad Henry.

Ken Elliott, veteran member of the ethics panel, said he had not heard complaints about the state's disclosure rules.

``We may hear complaints now,'' he said Thursday. ``If there's a desire to expand disclosure then the commission will certainly consider that.''

The state's public disclosure law generally requires legislators and state officials to disclose sources of income that exceed $5,000.

Rebecca Adams, general counsel for the commission, said when the ethics rules on disclosure were first adopted and allowed to go into effect by the Legislature in the early 1990s, the goal of commissioners was to ``pinpoint potential conflicts of interest,'' while not requiring officials to give details of their income or their personal wealth.

The commission, Adams said, ``felt like it was more important, for instance, to know whether a member of the Corporation Commission owned AT&T or Southwestern Bell stock when they would be sitting over rates cases than it was to know what their wealth was.''

She said the commission sought to balance the public's ``right to know'' against an official or candidate's ``right to financial privacy.''

Therefore, state officials and lawmakers, unlike members of the U.S. House and Senate, do not have to list ranges of income or ranges of their personal wealth.