Opaque Government: Elected Officials Failing to Ensure Transparency

Requiring public officials to disclose their financial interests is designed to instill citizen confidence in government. It is the law in Virginia and in Tennessee, and thousands of officials in both states file disclosure statements each year.

But a close inspection of those statements reveals widespread deviation from the reporting requirements.

Far from inspiring public trust, the statements reveal a story of confusion, carelessness and sometimes disregard for the law by those who fill them out.

Additionally, oversight of the process, which ranges from weak to nonexistent, raises questions about how serious state governments are in executing transparency requirements.

The Bristol Herald Courier and news partner News Channel 11 Connects obtained and reviewed the 2009 statements of about 700 public officials in Southwest Virginia and East Tennessee. The investigation revealed pervasive errors, including the use of obsolete forms, blank fields, incomplete and sometimes incorrect information, missing schedules, and forms filed after the deadline.

Aside from the errors and omissions found on nearly 40 percent of the documents, the statements did not reveal obvious or egregious conflicts of interest or any intentional violations of law.

Yet the errors suggest that many public officials are uninformed or careless when filling out the statements, and that raises doubts about whether the documents are complete – and serving their purpose.

Phyllis Errico, a legal expert for the Virginia Association of Counties, said public officials do take the forms seriously. So far, she said, no one has complained that the Virginia form is confusing, and no one has professed intentions to shirk its requirements.

“My impression is that everybody takes it seriously,” Errico said. “After all, it’s part of their office as a public official.”

Yet there is a sense in both states that many see the forms as merely perfunctory.

“Sometimes you can tell that somebody is saying, ‘yeah, this is just paperwork,’ and they put none, none, none, none,” said Dave Harrell, a compliance officer for the Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance who reviews the forms.

Virginia and Tennessee differ significantly on the level of disclosure required and how the records are maintained, but they share a common characteristic: Neither has a uniform, functioning mechanism that ensures compliance.

Instead, in both states, the flawed disclosures point to regulatory voids – the result of vague statutes and a lack of staffing and resources.

The disclosure laws in both states also are perceived poorly on a national level. On its 2009 transparency survey, The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog organization based in Washington, flunked both Virginia and Tennessee. The survey reviewed filing deadlines, the information required, ease of access by the public and enforcement.

“Citizens have a right to expect a certain amount of basic and personal information about their elected officials,” Mary Boyle, vice president for communications for Common Cause, said in the center’s report. Disclosure laws allow the public “to make a judgment about whether there are conflicts of interest,” Boyle said. When states have weak or nonexistent disclosure laws, she said, “the public knows less about an elected official.”

Legislators in Virginia and Tennessee, responding to the findings of the Herald Courier’s investigation, now are asking their own questions about the effectiveness of their disclosure laws.

“Why even have [requirements] if we don’t check on them?” said Rep. Kent Williams, R-Elizabethton, speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives. “It’s no use forming special commissions if we’re not following through.”

In Virginia, Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, took Williams’ point a step further.

“If no one is examining these conflict-of-interest statements, it looks like the code is going to have to be amended,” Kilgore said.

Reporters Daniel Gilbert, Michael L. Owens, Debra McCown, Mac McLean, David McGee, Claire Galofaro, Roger Brown, Christine Uthoff and Nate Morabito contributed to this report.

Among the findings from our area:
* Of about 700 forms reviewed for officials in both states, nearly 40 percent contained errors or omissions.
* In both states, 73 officials filed late; at least 12 filed after reporters sought their forms.
* In Virginia, 80 officials filed obsolete forms, including judges, constitutional officers and entire local bodies.
* In Tennessee, one state employee is tasked with reviewing all disclosure statements, but not with ensuring that officials comply.
* In Virginia, no one has ever been prosecuted for violating this code section in the 22-year history of the act.
* In Tennessee, enforcement is focused on ensuring officials file statements, not on compliance. Still, the state has fined at least one area official.