A performance audit of the Arizona Ethics Board

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
0 f
THE ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD
MARCH 1979
THE ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD IS SUBSTANDARD
WITH REGARD TO FUNDING, SCOPE, AUTHORITY,
JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITY LEVEL WHEN COM-PARED
TO THE OTHER STATES ENTITIES THAT
REGULATE PUBLIC OFFICIALS. AS A RESULT, THE
ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD HAS NOT DEMON-STRATED
ANY EFFECTIVENESS SINCE ITS IN-CEPTION
IN 1975.
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 1
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
SUITE 600
112 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004
255- 4385
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
March 29, 1979
BILLIE J. ALLRED, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
SUITE 820
33 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
882- 5465
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Members of the Arizona Legislature
Members of the Arizona Ethics Board
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General,
A Performance Audit of the Arizona Ethics Board. This report
is in response to a September 19, 1978, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee and a January 18, 1979,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.
A summary of this report is found on the blue pages at the
front of the report. A response to this report from the
members of the Arizona Ethics Board is found on the yellow
pages preceding the appendices of the report.
My staff and I will be happy to meet with the appropriate
legislative committees, individual legislators, or other
State officials to discuss or clarify any items in this report
or to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
Staff: Gerald A. Silva
Robert T. Back
Auditor General
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
THE ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD
REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 79- 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDING
The Arizona E t h i c s Board is substandard w i t h r e g a r d
t o funding, scope, a u t h o r i t y , j u r i s d i c t i o n and
a c t i v i t y l e v e l when compared t o t h e o t h e r states'
e n t i t i e s t h a t r e g u l a t e public o f f i c i a l s . A s a
r e s u l t , t h e Arizona Ethics Board has not demonstrated
any e f f e c t i v e n e s s s i n c e its i n c e p t i o n i n 1975.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
NON- COMPLIANCE WITH A. R. S. SECTION 38- 563
SERVICE CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - STATE OF WISCONSIN REPORT " GUIDE
TO ETHICS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONSn
APPENDIX I1 - ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES SECTIONS 38- 541
through 38- 581
APPENDIX I11 - EXCERPTS FROM ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD
MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 1979
APPENDIX I V - ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 75- 729
APPENDIX V - LETTER TO GOVERNOR RAUL CASTRO -
JANUARY 14, 1977
APPENDIX V I - LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO GOVERNOR
WESLEY BOLIN - FEBRUARY 28, 1978
SUMMARY
The Arizona Ethics Board was created i n 1975 as a part of the " Good Governmentw
Legislation passed by the Arizona S t a t e Legislature ( Regular Session, 1974).
There a r e eight members of the Board, each appointed by the Governor f o r a
four- year term. The Ethics Board is funded through the S t a t e General Fund.
These funds are used t o pay per diem and mileage expenses of the Board members,
the operating expenditures of the Board and t h e c o s t of the s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t
with the Arizona S t a t e Boards Administrative Office ( ASBAO). ( page 2)
Our review of the Arizona Ethics Board revealed t h a t the Board is substandard
with regard t o budget appropriation, full- time support staff,
scope, a u t h o r i t y , number o f public o f f i c i a l s regulated and number of com-p
l a i n t s heard against public o f f i c i a l s when compared t o the other states'
e n t i t i e s t h a t regulate public o f f i c i a l s . A s a r e s u l t , the Arizona Ethics Board
has not demonstrated any effectiveness since its inception i n 1975. ( page 8)
Our review a l s o revealed t h a t the Board is not providing continuing education
as required by Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s Section 38- 563. ( page 20)
In addition, an analysis of the Board's expenditures revealed t h a t during
f i s c a l year 1976- 77 and 1977- 78, 78% of its t o t a l expenditures were f o r the
service contract with ASBAO. ( page 21)
The funding and scope of authority f o r t h e Arizona Ethics Board should be
increased if the Board is t o be continued. The present funding, scope,
authority and r e s u l t a n t a c t i v i t y l e v e l do not j u s t i f y continuing the Arizona
Ethics Board beyond July 1, 1980. ( page 19)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND '
In response to a September 19, 1978, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee and a January 18, 1979, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee, we have conducted a performance audit as a part of the
Sunset Review of the Arizona Ethics Board, in accordance with A. R. S.
Sections 43- 2351 through 43- 2374.
The Ethics Board was created in 1975 as a part of the " Good Government"
Legislation passed by the Arizona State Legislature ( Regular Session, 1974).
There are eight members of the Board, each appointed by the Governor for a
four- year term. No more than four members of the Board may be from any one
political party. The Board's authority is limited to hearing complaints or
initiating investigations into the limited financial disclosure statements of
the following nine elected State officials:
Governor
Secretary of State
Attorney General
State Treasurer
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Three State Corporation Commissioners
State Mine Inspector
The Arizona Ethics Board has no full- time support staff. All support functions
are handled by the Arizona State Boards Administrative Office ( ASBAO) which was
created in 1976. ASBAO serves as the support staff for the Ethics Board and 11
other State boards or commissions, providing secretarial and clerical services
for each tenant board or commission.
The Ethics Board is funded through the State General Fund. These funds are
used to pay per diem and mileage expenses of the Board members; and to pay any
costs incurred during an investigation and for the cost of the service contract
with ASBAO.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Budget information for t h e E t h i c s Board f o r f i s c a l years 1974- 75 through 1978-
79 is shown below, including the amounts of t h e s e r v i c e contract with ASBAO f o r
f i s c a l years 1976- 77 through 1978- 79.
4SBAO Amount Reverted
F i s c a l Budget Contract 0 t her Total To S t a t e
Year Appropriation Amount ( 1) Expenditures Expenditures General Fund
1) Refer t o o t h e r p e r t i n e n t information. ( page 21)
2) F i r s t f u l l year of operation for the Arizona Ethics Board.
Expenses include Equipment, $ 1,600; s e c r e t a r i a l and recording expense,
$ 1,100; t r a v e l and per diem expense, $ 2,000.
( 3) A s of January 31, 1979.
( 4) Excludes f i s c a l year 1978- 79.
The members of the Arizona Ethics Board have expressed a desire t o expand the
scope, authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Board and by so doing, make the Board
more responsive t o t h s needs of the people of Arizona. The Office of the
Auditor General expresses its gratitude t o the members of the Board and the
s t a f f of the ASBAO for t h e i r cooperation, assistance and consideration during
the course of our audit.
-:; IJN:; l.;' r FACTORS
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND PrJItP0:; E IN ESTABLISHING THE BOARD
The Arizona Ethics Board was cr~: iitrtcl in 1975 as a part of the llGood Govern-ment"
Legislation passed by t h e Arlzona S t a t e Legislature ( Regular Session,
1974).
0 Attorney General Opinion 75- 723 : I t;~ t, nn i n part:
n.. . it would appear that [, ha Ethics Board has been given
t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o conxl cler the v a l i d i t y and make find-ings
regarding the mc? rlt,: j of " Complaints" which are
brought t o it3 attentLon, and t o make such other
investigations and inqu 1 r. 1 ~ v- 1 into the disclosures which,
i n its discretion, are W: lr* r: lnted within t h e l i m i t a t i o n of
its resources..."
The Board states its program goaL: j , I:+ t'ollows:
- To provide prompt .1r1( 1 f a c t u a l review and investi-gation
of charges .~ g: 1t r l : i t public o f f i c i a l s .
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WIIL(: Il ' i+ IIt.: BOARD HAS BEEN
ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF ' rrle: Iwlltrc AND THE
EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH IT HAS QPEIIA'CKI)
Because of its limited scope, authoreity and j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e Arizona Ethics
Board has had minimal a c t i v i t y 3Lrkc: a I t s inception i n 1975. ( page 16) The
powers of the Board are limited t, o t~ cj: irtng complaints from the general public
concerning the limited financial ~ l l : i c ~ Lsota~ te~ m~ en~ ts o f nine elected S t a t e *
o f f i c i a l s . Because of these lirnlt, il; lons and r e s u l t a n t l a c k o f a c t i v i t y on the
part of the Board, it does not appear that the Board has been able t o respond t o
the needs of the public. ( For a flurt, hor discussion of these issues, see page
8.)
* See Appendix I V for a f u l l text of' Atborney General Opinion 75- 729.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BOARD HAS OPERATED
WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The Arizona Ethics Board has not heard a complaint against a public o f f i c i a l
since its inception on March 31, 1975. A s of February 1, 1979, only three
complaints have been presented t o the Board and it was determined t h a t a l l of
these complaints were outside the scope, authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n of the
rn Board.
Because its scope, authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e so limited, it is d i f f i c u l t
t o conclude t h a t the Board has operated within the public i n t e r e s t . ( For a
discussion of these issues, see page 8 . )
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE BOARD ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
After reviewing the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board, it appears
t h a t these rules and regulations are consistent with A. R. S. Sections 38- 541
through 38- 563.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY HAS
ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE PROMULGATING
ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH I T
HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS TO ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR
EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
The meetings of the Arizona S t a t e Ethics Board a r e open t o the public. Notices
of meetings are posted in the Occupational Licensing Building and circulated t o
i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s through d i r e c t mailings and other approved methods. The
Board has heard statements from public organizations and individuals and has
made an e f f o r t t o incorporate t h i s public input i n t o its procedures. The rules
and regulations, however, were developed d i r e c t l y from A. R. S. Sections 38- 541
through 38- 563, and as such, there was no public input i n the development of
the Board's rules and regulations.
The extent t o which the Board has informed the public of its actions and t h e i r
expected impact cannot be determined because the Board has heard no complaints
nor issued any opinions since its inception i n 1975. ( page 14)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AGENCY
HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
The Arizona Ethics Board has received no complaints within its j u r i s d i c t i o n .
( page 14)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE
AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER THE ENABLING LEGISLATION
A. R. S. Section 38- 562 C. states that:
" If the board finds based upon a preponderance of the
evidence t h a t there is probable cause t o believe t h a t the
f a c t s alleged i n the complaint are t r u e and c o n s t i t u t e a
violation of t h i s chapter or a v i o l a t i o n of a r t i c l e 1 of
t h i s chapter, it s h a l l report its findings t o the person
f i l i n g the complaint, the public o f f i c e r against whom the
complaint is f i l e d , t h e governor and t o the appropriate
law enforcement agency f o r proceedings i n prosecution of
such violation^.^
However, the Attorney General has advised the Board t h a t there are r e s t r i c t i o n s
on the Board's authority t o transmit information t o law enforcement agencies.
( page 16)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BOARD
HAS ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N THEIR ENABLING
STATUTES WHICH PREVENT THEM FROM FULFILLING
THEIR STATUTORY MANDATE
Since its creation i n 1975, the Board has made several attempts to have the
s t a t u t e s revised t o expand its scope of authority and jurisdiction.
In his l e t t e r of resignation, dated February 28, 1978, Board Member Everett
Jones said:
"... It is my opinion t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n provided to
implement t h i s Committee is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o responsibly
discharge its intended functions. The scope of authority
of the Committee is too narrow to be of general use to the
citizens of Arizona and the observance of the formality of
occasional meetings of those appointed t o the Board serves
no useful function.. ."
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES
ARE NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF THE AGENCY TO
ADEQUATELY COMPLY WITH THE FACTORS LISTED
I N THIS SUBSECTION
For a discussion of these issues, see page 19.
THE ARIZONA ETHICS BOARD IS SUBSTANDARD WITH REGARD TO FUNDING, SCOPE,
AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITY LEVEL WHEN COMPARED TO THE OTHER
STATES' ENTITIES THAT REGULATE PUBLIC OFFICIALS. AS A RESULT, THE ARIZONA
ETHICS BOARD HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ANY EFFECTIVENESS SINCE ITS INCEPTION
I N 1975.
A s of January 1, 1979, there were e n t i t i e s i n 36 s t a t e s which were responsible
for regulating public o f f i c i a l s by reviewing financial disclosure statements,
investigating conflicts of i n t e r e s t and enforcing the s t a t e ' s ethics laws as
they pertain to public o f f i c i a l s . The Arizona Ethics Board is decidedly
substandard with regard t o budget appropriation, full- time support s t a f f ,
scope, authority and number of o f f i c i a l s regulated, and number of complaints
heard against public o f f i c i a l s when compared t o the other s t a t e s 1 e n t i t i e s t h a t
regulate public o f f i c i a l s .
BUDGET APPROPRIATION
The Arizona Ethics Board's budget appropriation for f i s c a l year 1978- 79 is
$ 9,700. O f the 36 s t a t e s 1 e n t i t i e s that have been established to regulate
public o f f i c i a l s , only four ( Maine, Louisiana, Nevada and Colorado) were
appropriated l e s s funds than the Arizona Ethics Board t o carry out t h e i r
responsibilities.
In California the e n t i t y responsible for regulating public o f f i c i a l s is the
F a i r P o l i t i c a l Practices Commission ( FPPC). The 1978- 79 budget appropriation
f o r t h e California FPPC is $ 1,384,000 which is the largest s t a t e budget
appropriation given t o any of the 36 s t a t e s ' e n t i t i e s responsible for regulat-ing
public o f f i c i a l s . The next l a r g e s t 1978- 79 s t a t e budget appropriation of
$ 384,000 was given t o the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. The
t o t a l 1978- 79 s t a t e budget appropriations for the 36 e n t i t i e s responsible for
regulating public o f f i c i a l s is $ 4,39 1,155 or an average of $ 121,977.
Table 1 summarizes the 1978- 79 s t a t e budget appropriations for the 36 states
t h a t have established an e n t i t y to regulate public o f f i c i a l s . The s t a t e s on
Table 1 are l i s t e d i n order from the l a r g e s t to the smallest 1978- 79 budget
appropriation. The information contained i n Table 1 is based upon a survey of
all 50 s t a t e s conducted by the Office of the Auditor General.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF 1978- 79 STATE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE 36 STATES THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED AN ENTITY
TO REGULATE PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
California
Washington
Alaska
Ohio
Florida
Kansas
Minnesota
Alabama
Nebraska
Oregon
Rhode Island
Hawaii
New Jersey
Wisconsin
I l l i n o i s
South Carolina
Connecticut
New York
North Carolina
Maryland
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Georgia
Indiana
Texas
South Dakota
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Michigan
Pennsylvania
ARIZONA
Maine
Louisiana
Nevada
Colorado
Listed i n order Prom the large'st to the smallest 1978- 79 budget appropriation.
FULL- TIME SUPPORT STAFF
The Arizona Ethics Board has no full- time support s t a f f for f i s c a l year 1978-
79. The Arizona State Board Administrative Office ( ASBAO) provides the staff
support f o r t h e Arizona Ethics Board. A s of January 1, 1979, the ASBAO had 54
full- time equivalents ( FTE). According t o s t a t i s t i c s prepared by the ASBAO,
l e s s than 3 percent of its s t a f f time was devoted t o Arizona Ethics Board
a c t i v i t i e s during the first s i x months of f i s c a l year 1978- 79.
According t o a survey conducted by the Office of the Auditor General, as of
January 1, 1979, 31 of the 36 s t a t e s ' e n t i t i e s that regulated public o f f i c i a l s
had a t l e a s t 1 full- time support s t a f f . California had the most with 41 full-time
support s t a f f . Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas had no full- time support
s t a f f but did have access t o s t a t e personnel to hear complaints or conduct
investigations. One s t a t e e n t i t y ( Colorado) had a part- time position autho-rized
for support s t a f f . Thus, when contrasted with the 35 other s t a t e s *
e n t i t i e s t h a t regulate public o f f i c i a l s , Arizona had the l e a s t amount of
support s t a f f a s of January 1, 1979.
Table 2 summarizes the amount of support s t a f f provided to the 36 s t a t e s f
e n t i t i e s that regulate public o f f i c i a l s . The s t a t e s i n Table 2 are l i s t e d i n
order from the largest t o the l e a s t amount of support s t a f f as of January 1,
1979-
SUMMARY OF THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT STAFF PROVIDED
TO THE 36 STATES' ENTITIES THAT REGULATE PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1979.
California
Washington
Ohio
Florida
Alabama
Kansas
Minnesota
New Jersey
Alaska
Nebraska
Hawaii
Georgia
I l l i n o i s
Maryland
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Connecticut
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Indiana
Louisiana
Michigan
Nevada
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Colorado
ARIZONA
4 1
12
11
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
Part- time
( 3)
( 1) Listed i n order from the largest to the l e a s t amount of support
s t a f f provided.
( 2) These boards or commissions are part of a larger s t a t e agency. There
are no full- time support personnel. However, when a complaint or
investigation is undertaken, personnel are transferred t o the regulating
entity.
( 3) The Arizona Ethics Board is housed a t the Arizona State Board's Administrative
Office ( ASBAO). ASBAO records indicate t h a t 2.87% of the Office
work load dealt with support functions for the Ethics Board.
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY AND NUMBER
OF OFFICIALS REGULATED
The Arizona Ethics Board has the narrowest scope of authority and regulates the
fewest number of public officials when compared with the 35 other states1
entities that regulate public officials. According to a report prepared by the
State of Wisconsin ( see Appendix I) for fiscal year 1977- 78; Alabama,
Washington, California, Oregon, Arkansas and Nebraska had the broadest scopes
of authority. They had jurisdiction over some or all members of the following
groups :
Legislators
Legislative employees
Statewide elected officials
Officers of state agencies
State employees
County and municipal officials and employees
Judges
Candidates for election to state office
State board members
The Arizona Ethics Board has jurisdiction over only one of the above groups -
statewide elected officials. There are two other state entities ( Maine and
Georgia) with jurisdiction over only one of the above groups. However, in both
instances that group is Legislators and, as such, constitutes a broader scope
of authority than is given to the Arizona Ethics Board.
In addition to having the narrowest scope of authority, the Arizona Ethics
Board regulates the fewest number of public officials of any of the states1
entities that regulate public officials. According to a survey conducted by
the Office of the Auditor General, as of January 1, 1979, the Florida
Commission on Ethics had jurisdiction over the greatest number of public
officials - 29,000; while the Arizona Ethics Board had jurisdiction over the
fewest number of public officials - 9.
Table 3 summarizes the scopes of authority for, and the number of public
officials regulated by the 36 states1 entities that regulate public officials
as of January 1, 1979. The states in Table 3 are listed in order from the
highest to the fewest number of public officials regulated as of January 1,
1979.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF THE SCOPES OF AUTHORITY FOR AND NUMBEI OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS REGULATED
BY THE 36 STATES' ENTITIES THAT REGULATE PUBLIC C+ FFICIALS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1979.
Public Officials Regulated Bl State Entity ( 1)
n
Number of Public
Officials Under
Boardf s
Jurisdiction (- 2)
State ( 3)
X
X
X
X
X
Some
X
X
Some
X
X
X
Some
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Some
X
Some
Some
Some
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Some
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X AV
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X Some
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Senator
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Some
Some
X
X
X
X
Florida
Alabama
Kansas
Ohio
Washington
South Carolina
California
Oregon
I l l i n o i s
Rhode Island
New York
Alaska
Indiana
Texas
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Tennessee ( Note 2)
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Hawaii
North Carolina
Colorado
Nevada
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Some
X
X
Governor
Only
X
X
X
X
X
Some
X Some
X
X X
X X
South Dakota Some
Louisiana
Arkansas
Nebraska
Connecticut
Maine
Georgia
Massachusetts
ARIZONA
X
X
Some
X
X
Some
Some
Source - Guide t o Ethics Boards and Commissions prepared by the State of Wisconsin Ethics Board ( Appendix I)
Source - Office of the Auditor General survey.
Listed i n order from the highest number of public o f f i c i a l s regulated t o the fewest number of public o f f i c i a l s regulated.
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS HEARD
AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS
The Arizona Ethics Board was the only state entity with the responsibility of
regulating public officials that did not hear a complaint against a public
official during fiscal year 1977- 78. The New Jersey Executive Committee on
Ethical Standards heard the most complaints against public officials - 316.
The New York Board on Public Disclosure, the Washington State Public Disclosure
Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission were second,
third and fourth in the number of complaints heard during fiscal year 1977- 78,
with 214, 180 and 120, respectively.
Table 4 summarizes the numbers of complaints heard against public officials
during fiscal year 1977- 78, by the 36 states' entities that regulate public
officials. The states in Table 4 are listed in order from the most to the least
number of complaints heard.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS HEARD
DURING FISCAL YEAR 1977- 78 BY THE 36 STATES'
ENTITIES THAT REGULATE PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
S t a t e ( 1)
New Jersey
New York
Washington
California
Ohio
Kansas
South Dakota
Alabama
I l l i n o i s
Florida
Nevada
Alaska
South Carolina
Texas
Connecticut
Maryland
Colorado
North Carolina
Oregon
Hawaii
Kentucky
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Rhode Island
Nebraska
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Georgia
Indiana .
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
ARIZONA
Number of complaints heard
Against Public O f f i c i a l s
( 1) Listed i n order from the most t o the l e a s t number of complaints heard.
LACK OF DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Since its inception in 1975, the Arizona Ethics Board has not heard any
complaints against public officials nor conducted any investigations. From
March 31, 1975 to February 1, 1979, the sum of the Board's activities
consisted of 1) holding 13 meetings; 2) adopting its rules and regulations; 3)
requesting an Attorney General's opinion regarding its powers and duties; and,
4) receiving three complaints against public officials, none of which could be
pursued because they were outside of the Board's jurisdiction.
On November 18, 1975, the Board submitted a request for an Attorney General's
opinion on eight questions pertaining to the Board's powers and duties.* The
Attorney General's response illustrates the narrow scope, authority and juris-diction
provided to the Board. In summary, the Attorney General responded to
the Board that:
- The Board was not required to actively monitor financial
disclosure statements.
- The Board was not required to maintain copies of financial
disclosure statements.
- The Board could not exceed its budget appropriation, when
pursuing a complaint, without Legislative authorization.
- The Board may have the authority to hold closed meetings.
- The rule- making authority of the Board was not in conflict with
the Administrative Procedure Act.
- The Board could not, in its official capacity, forward a
complaint to an appropriate law enforcement agency should it be
without sufficient budget to carry out a hearing. However, as
private citizens, individual members of the Board could notify
appropriate law enforcement agencies of a possible violation.
- The failure of the Board to take action on a complaint presented
to it could constitute a defense to an alleged violator should a
criminal complaint subsequently be brought against such an
alleged violator.
* A full text of the Board1 s questions and Attorney General responses -
Opinion No. 75- 729, is included in this report as Appendix IV.
The Attorney General opinion concluded by s t a t i n g :
*... A. R. S. Section 38- 562 requires i n pertinent part:
A. The Board s h a l l receive and may i n i t i a t e
complaints and charges a g a i n s t p u b l i c
o f f i c e r s . . .
B. The Board may i n v e s t i g a t e information provided
on the f i n a n c i a l statement of a public
o f f i c e r . . .
C. The Board s h a l l hold a hearing within 90 days
a f t e r a complaint is f i l e d ( t o determine its
merits) ...
To the extent t h a t the Board is required t o receive
* Complaintsn and i n s o f a r a s it is required t o determine
the merits o f those nComplaints, n the Board is required t o
carry out an a c t i v e program. These r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
however, appear t o be the extent of the Board's mandatory
duties. Although the Board has s u b s t a n t i a l discretionary
powers, there appears t o be no requirement expressed i n
t h e S t a t u t e which would impose upon the Board the
obligation t o be a watchdog of the accuracy of the
f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e statements f i l e d by public o f f i c i a l s .
I n s h o r t , it would appear t h a t the Ethics Board has been
given t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o consider t h e v a l i d i t y and make
findings regarding nComplaintsn which are brought t o its
a t t e n t i o n , and t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and i n q u i r i e s i n t o the
disclosures which, i n its d i s c r e t i o n , are warranted with-i
n the l i m i t a t i o n of its resources.
Your letter of November 18, 1975 a l s o requests t h i s o f f i c e
t o render i n v e s t i g a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e t o the Board. A t the
outset we would point out t h a t the duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e is
placed squarely upon the Board and does not obligate the
Attorney General t o provide investigatory services for the
Board. Many agencies of the S t a t e request t h a t we afford
them i n v e s t i g a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e and within the l i m i t s of our
resources we do so. O u r i n v e s t i g a t i v e s t a f f is conse-quently
usually overburdened, Thus, any i n v e s t i g a t i v e
assistance t h i s o f f i c e w i l l . be able t o render w i l l be
extremely limited. * ( Emphasis added)
According t o former and current members of the Arizona Ethics Board, the narrow
scope, authority and jurisdiction which is provided to the Board is d i r e c t l y
responsible for the absence of a c t i v i t y on the Board's part. For example, in a
January 14, 1977, l e t t e r t o Governor Raul Castro, then Board Chairman, D r .
Richard W. Cain stated i n part:
nThe State Ethics Board of Arizona, as opposed t o the
statutory provisions of many other s t a t e s , requires that
the Board sit only as a quasi- judicial body when a
complaint is made. The complaint may only concern itself
with the financial disclosure provisions of our s t a t e law,
which provisions exclude disclosures with respect to cash
surrender values of insurance, sources of compensation
outside public service from the public o f f i c e r ' s business
or profession, r e a l e s t a t e used primarily for personal
recreation, debts resulting from ordinary conduct of
business or profession, personal residence, consumer debts
or debts secured by l i f e insurance or debts to r e l a t i v e s ,
and other f i n a n c i a l f a c t s .
In addition, and unlike some other s t a t e s , the question of
conflict of i n t e r e s t disclosures, found i n A. R. S.
Sections 38- 501 through 38- 521, is excluded from the
jurisdiction of the State Ethics Board.
... it has occurred t o our collective mind that the
citizens of this State may mistakenly take comfort in an
assumption t h a t the existence of a State Ethics Board
implies a general and continuing review of the financial
disclosure statements required by our State Code and
conflict of i n t e r e s t disclosures. Those statements should
amount t o something more than the s t u f f i n g of additional
f i l e cabinets with documents which, once f i l e d , w i l l be
ignored.
( A complete copy of t h i s l e t t e r is attached t o t h i s report as Appendix V.)
I n addition, i n h i s letter of resignation, dated February 28, 1978, Board
Member Everett Jones said:
" It is my opinion t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n provided t o
implement t h i s Committee is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o responsibly
discharge its intended functions. The scope o f a u t h o r i t y
of the Committee is too narrow t o be of general use t o the
c i t i z e n s of Arizona and the observance of the formality of
occasional meetings of those appointed t o the Board serves
no useful function. ma
Further, Acting Board Chairman Myles Stewart s t a t e d at the January 26, 1979
Board Meeting -
"... I still go back t o what is my personal ... f e e l i n g t h a t
those i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t believe we have a S t a t e Ethics
Board o r e t h i c s panel probably a r e under some very grave
misapprehensions about what we r e a l l y a r e designed t o do
with respect t o ... controlling c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t and
c o n t r o l l i n g standards o f f i n a n c i a l disclosure. I am
extremely concerned t h a t t h a t is what people t h i n k . . . I f we
are going t o be apparantly such a board and r e a l l y nothing,
then I can't see the sense i n
CONCLUSION
When contrasted with the 35 other s t a t e s 1 e n t i t i e s t h a t regulate public
o f f i c i a l s , as of January 1, 1979, the Arizona Ethics Board had the narrowest
scope, a u t h o r i t y and j u r i s d i c t i o n and the least amount of f u l l - t i m e support
s t a f f . I n addition, the Arizona Ethics Board was 32nd i n budget appropriation
and l a s t i n the number of complaints heard against public o f f i c i a l s during
f i s c a l year 1977- 78. A s a r e s u l t of its substandard funding l e v e l , scope,
authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n , the a c t i v i t y level o f t h e Arizona Ethics Board has
been minimal since its inception i n 1975.
RECOMMENDATION
The funding, scope, authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r t h e Arizona Ethics Board
should be increased if the Board is t o be continued. The present funding,
scope, a u t h o r i t y , j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e s u l t a n t a c t i v i t y l e v e l do not j u s t i f y
continuing the Arizona Ethics Board beyond July 1, 1980.
* A complete copy of t h i s l e t t e r is attached as Appendix V I . ** See Appendix I11 f o r excerpts from the Arizona Ethics Board meeting of
January 26, 1979.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
NON- COMPLIANCE WITH A. R. S. SECTION 38- 563
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s Section 38- 563 states that:
" The board s h a l l provide a continuing program of education
and information concerning e t h i c s , c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t ,
and f i n a n c i a l disclosure.*
The Arizona Ethics Board does not provide any program of continuing
educating.
Acting Board Chairman Myles Stewart s t a t e d t h a t t h i s non- compliance has
occurred f o r the following reasons:
- Lack of funding; - The Board was unable t o determine the i n t e n t behind the require-ment
and were therefore unable t o develop an appropriate
program; and
- The scope and j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Board were so narrow as t o
make any such program useless.
SERVICE CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
The Arizona Ethics Board has no full- time support s t a f f . A l l support functions
are provided by the Department of Administration through the Arizona State
Board Administrative Office ( ASBAO). The ASBAO, created i n 1976, was designed
t o provide s e c r e t a r i a l , c l e r i c a l and other general support functions and office
f a c i l i t i e s t o a number of small s t a t e boards or commissions. A t the present
time, 12 boards are housed a t the ASBAO. These boards are:
Athletic Commission
Chiropractic Examiners
Dispensing Opticians
Ethics Board
Funeral Directors and Embalmers
Naturopathic Examiners
Optometry Examiners
Physical Therapy Examiners
Psychologist Examiners
Podiatry Examiners
Veterinarian Medical Examiners
Nursing Care I n s t i t u t i o n a l Administrators
Each of the above boards pays a contract amount to the Department of Adminis-t
r a t i o n based upon the amount of s e c r e t a r i a l , c l e r i c a l , general support and
office space provided t o it by the ASBAO. The ASBAO contract amounts for the
above boards for f i s c a l year 1976- 77, were based upon estimates of the amount
of service that ASBAO would provide t o each board. In the case of the Arizona
Ethics Board, t h e a c t u a l l e v e l of service provided t o it by the ASBAO during
f i s c a l year 1976- 77, was considerably l e s s than anticipated, thus the board was
charged for services it did not receive.
According t o the Administrative Manager of the ASBAO, t h i s overcharge occurred
because a t the time of the estimate, it was assumed that the Board would be
actively engaged i n holding hearings and conducting investigations and there-fore
would require substantial ASBAO support. The Board did not, however,
require the anticipated level of ASBAO support because it did not hold any
hearings or conduct any investigations during f i s c a l ye& 1976- 77. An analysis
of Arizona Ethics Board expenditures for f i s c a l years 1976- 77 and 1977- 78
revealed that 78 percent of the Board's t o t a l expenditures ($ 7,800) were for
the ASBAO Service contract. The f i s c a l year 1978- 79 Board contract with the
ASBAO is for $ 2,400.
ETHICS BOARD - 1645 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007
( 602) 271- 3095
March 28, 1979
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
S t a t e of Arizona
112 North C e n t r a l Avenue, S u i t e 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Subject: Unanimous Resolution of t h e S t a t e E t h i c s Board
Dear M r . Norton:
A t its meeting of March 28, 1979, t h e E t h i c s Board issued
t h e following unanimous r e s o l u t i o n relative t o Sunset Review:
The S t a t e E t h i c s Board has been i n e x i s t e n c e f o r some f i v e
( 5) years and its c r e a t i o n was p r i m a r i l y t h e r e s u l t of a
lack of p u b l i c confidence i n both government and p o l i t i c i a n s .
In o t h e r of t h e United S t a t e s , a t t e m p t s t o r e g u l a t e c o n f l i c t
of i n t e r e s t and f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e began i n t h e middle
1 8 0 0 ' s ; t h u s , Arizona is new t o t h i s area of concern.
The S t a t e E t h i c s Board o f Arizona, a s opposed t o t h e s t a t u t o r y
p r o v i s i o n s of many o t h e r s t a t e s , r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e Board s i t
only a s a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l body when a complaint is made. The
complaint may only concern i t s e l f with t h e f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e
p r o v i s i o n s of our s t a t e l a w , which law is remarkable i n what
it excludes from required d i s c l o s u r e s .
I n a d d i t i o n , and u n l i k e some o t h e r s t a t e s , t h e q u e s t i o n of
c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t d i s c l o s u r e s , found i n A . R . S . 538- 501
through 38- 521, is excluded from t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e
S t a t e E t h i c s Board.
The S t a t e E t h i c s Board is permitted, but n o t r e q u i r e d , t o
recommend l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o e t h i c s , c o n f l i c t s of
i n t e r e s t and f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e and a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s
concerning t h e s e m a t t e r s . Curiously, t h e S t a t e s t a t u t e s a r e
mandatory i n r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h i s Board " s h a l l " provide a
continuing program of education and information concerning
e t h i c s , c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t and f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e .
Should t h i s Board be given j u r i s d i c t i o n over c o n f l i c t of
i n t e r e s t , then its a c t i v i t i e s would i n c l u d e a program of
continuing education and information a s provided i n ARS
Section 38- 563.
Auditor General - 2- Sunset Review
We recognize t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e , i n c r e a t i n g t h i s E t h i c s
Board, was wary of c r e a t i n g a " monster" i n t h e sense of
having a Board with g u f f i c i e n t power to misuse it- It is
b e t t e r t o go slow i n the e a r l y s t a g e s , and we b e l i e v e we
have done so. We s i n c e r e l y a g r e e t h a t extremism has no
place i n any branch of government, We have no wish t o
i n i t i a t e , of our own motion, any h e a r i n g s f o r the same
reason t h a t judges do not wander t h e streets attempting t o
drum up business in c i v i l or c r i m i n a l l i t i g a t i o n .
On the o t h e r hand, it has occurred t o o u r ' c o l l e c t i v e mind
t h a t the c i t i z e n s of t h i s S t a t e may mistakenly take comfort
i n a f a l s e assumption t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of a S t a t e Ethics
Board implies a general and continuing review of t h e f i n a n c i a l
d i s c l o s u r e statements required by our S t a t e Code, and perhaps
c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t d i s c l o s u r e s . The Board recommends t h a t
its j u r i s d i c t i o n be expanded t o include t h e area of c o n f l i c t
of i n t e r e s t as set f o r t h i n ARS S e c t i o n s 38- 501 through 38- 505.
The Board f e e l s no public o r governmental need f o r a board
t h a t would a c t i v e l y prosecute o r i n v e s t i g a t e . However, none
of us a r e so naive as t o assume t h a t a v e r y r a p i d l y growing
Arizona, with a l l the attendant f i n a n c i a l and p o l i t i c a l
p u l l s and tugs, w i l l be able t o e x i s t long without some
uniform and c o n s i s t e n t guidelines i n t h e area of c o n f l i c t of
i n t e r e s t and f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e . It is t h e nature of our
f r e e e n t e r p r i s e system t h a t competition w i l l bring p r e s s u r e s
upon a l l public servants and public employees, whether
elected or appointed- Such persons are l e f t t o t h e mercy of
a hasty d e c i s i o n , or a decision rendered by an a t t o r n e y who
is, o r f e e l s him or h e r s e l f t o be, i n a s u b s e r v i e n t p o s i t i o n
t o t h e p u b l i c o f f i c e r o r employee asking f o r t h e opinion on
c o n f l i c t . I f a l l such public s e r v a n t s could know t h a t t h e r e
is a state board designed t o " take t h e p r e s s u r e o f f " these
hard questions and d e c i s i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n f l i c t of
i n t e r e s t , we b e l i e v e p u b l i c and p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s
s t a t e would be well served. It would o f f e r a comforting
a l t e r n a t i v e f o r , say, a, town councilman to t u r n t o t h e
record and show t h a t he or she has submitted t h e c o n f l i c t t o
the S t a t e Ethics Board for guidance. This is f a r b e t t e r
than having t o deal with these p r e d i c t a b l e problems on a
hurried b a s i s ,
It is t h e concensus of the Board t h a t a d v i s o r y opinions are
s o r e l y needed and yet there is no group or a u t h o r i t y to i s s u e
them a t t h e state l e v e l where they can be c o n t i n u i n g , non-c
o n f l i c t i n g and uniform.
Auditor General - 3- Sunset Review
The members of the S t a t e Ethics Board do not f e e l t h a t any
inordinate i n c r e a s e i~ budget would be required t o accomplish
the function of an advisory body. The s t a t e s t a t u t e s already
r e q u i r e the advisory opinions on c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t ( pre-s
e n t l y made the duty of various public a t t o r n e y s ) t o be
lodged with the S t a t e Ethics Board. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t the
l e g i s l a t u r e i t s e l f may not have a complete and accurate
concept of the present narrow j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Board.
Further, it is the sense of t h i s Board t h a t t o have these
opinions sent t o it r e a l l y serves no purpose because the
board has no a u t h o r i t y t o communicate with the authors i n an
attempt t o achieve a uniformity and consistency of d e c i s i o n .
Before t h i s s t a t e reaches even g r e a t e r p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l ,
and i n d u s t r i a l maturity, it would be a prudent course of
a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h a single source of a u t h o r i t y f o r c o n f l i c t s
of i n t e r e s t and f o r f i n a n c i a l disclosure.
Although it is easy t o understand and a c c e p t a l e g i s l a t u r e s '
f e e l i n g t h a t a t its l e v e l of government it is b e t t e r t o have
s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i v e r u l e s , controls and s t a n d a r d s o f e t h i c s ,
those e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s i n the executive branch of s t a t e
government, together with those i n counties, c i t i e s , and
towns, a r e not always as able or well- aided in the t w i s t s
and turns of the c o n f l i c t s and problems a t t e n d a n t public
s e r v i c e .
The Ethics Board recommends t h a t its powers and scope be ex-panded
i n t h e a r e a s and i n the manner set f o r t h above.
Sincerely,
~ y l e gC. Stewart -
chairman
MCS: je
cc: A l l Board Members
APPENDIX I
GUIDE TO ETHICS BOARDS
AND COMMI SSIONS
Prepared by:
Jane E. Miller
STATE OF WISCONSIN ETHICS BOARD
122 W. Washington Avenue
Madisons, WI 53703
( 608) 266- 8123
R. Roth Judd, Executive Director
ETHICS COMMISSIONS
D
ALABAMA Alabama Ethics Comnission, Melvin Cooper, Executive
Director, 312 Montgomery St., Montgomery 36067 ( 205) 832- 5871
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORI DA
GEORGIA
HAWAI I
I ow0
ILLINOIS
Alaska Pub1 i c Offices Comnission, Randal 1 P. Burns,
Executive Director, 610 C St., Suite 209 , Anchorage 99501
( 907) 279- 1627
Arizona Ethics Board, Elaine C. K i tchener , Executive
Director, 1645 N. Jefferson, Room 418, Phoenix 85007
( 602) 271- 3095
Secretary o f State's Office, Paul Riviere, S t a f f Counsel,
Rm. 262, State Capi to1 , L i t t l e Rock 72201 ( 501) 371- 1010
Cal if ornia Fair Pol it i c a l Practices C m is sion, Dan Lowenstei n,
Chairman; Michael Bennet, Executive Director, 1100 K Street,
P. O. Box 807, Sacramento 95814 ( 916) 322- 5660
Colorado State Board o f Ethics, c/ o A. Edgar Benton,
Secretary, 1700 Broadway, Denver 80290 ( 303) 861- 7000
( Nominal e n t i t y a t t h i s time, working with governor to
r e v i t a l i z e i t . )
State Ethics C m i ssion, Secretary o f State's Office,
30 T r i n i t y St., Hartford 06115 ( 203) 566- 4135, Executive
Director: vacant
Presently no ethics comnission
D. C. Board of Elections & Ethics, Shari Kharasch, Chair,
Winfred Mundle, General Counsel, D i s t r i c t Building,
14th & E St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20004 ( 202) 347- 3032
Florida Comnission on Ethics, Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Executive
Director, P. O. Box 6, Tall ahassee 32302 ( 904) 488- 786417865
Presently no ethics comnission -- Georgia State Campaign
and Fi nanci a1 Disclosure Comni ssion, Ms. K i pl i ng L. McVay ,
Executive Director, 148 International Blvd., N. E., Suite 642,
At1 anta 30303 ( 404) 656- 2764
Hawaii State Ethics Comnission, Gary M. Slovin, Executive
Director, P. O. Box 616, Honolulu 96809 ( 808) 536- 2650 or
548- 2350
Presently no ethics comni ssion
I l l i n o i s Board of Ethics, John L. Larsen, Executive
Director, 522 W i l l iam G. Stratton Bldg., Springfield
62706 ( 217) 782- 3900
rn INDIANA Indiana State Ethics and Conflicts o f Interest Comnission,
Executive Director: Mary A. Donovan, 108- A State Office
Building, Indianapol i s 46204 ( 317) 633- 4865
0 IOWA
KANSAS
0
KENTUCKY
D
KENTUCKY
LOU I S IANA
MAINE
8
MARY LAN D
MARY LAND rn
MARY LAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
m
MINNESOTA
Indiana Senate Ethics Comnittee, State Capitol,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Presently no ethics comni ssion. Under consideration
by Governor's Task Force on Government Ethics, Don C.
Uthus, Comnerce Counsel , State Capi to1 , Des Moi nes 50319
( 515) 281- 5984
Kansas Governmental. Ethics Comnission, Lynn He1 lebust,
Executive Director, 109 Wt 9th St., Topeka 66612
( 913) 296- 4219
Board o f Ethics o f the ~ entucky General Assembly,
Carolyn Kinman, Secretary, 605 Teton T r a i l , Frankfort
40601 ( 502) 564- 2001
Kentucky Financial Disclosure Review Comnission, P. O. Box 431,
Corbi n 40701 ( 606) 523- 0443
Louisiana Comnission on Governmental Ethics, Gray Saxton,
attorney, ( 504) 389- 5662. Board o f Ethics for State El ected
Officials, George Hamner, Executive Secretary for both,
Capi to1 Station, P. O. Box 44111, Baton Rouge 70804
Comnission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices,
James Bowie, Assistant t o Corn., c/ o Election Division,
Office of the Secretary o f State, Augusta 04333 ( 207) 289- 3501
Maryland Joint Comi t t e e on Legislative Ethics, members o f
House and Senate Comi ttees on Ethics, Helen Koss, Chairman
Rm. 221 State Office B l dg., Annapolis 21401 ( 301) 269- 2356
Maryland Public Disclosure Advisory Board, Professor
Everett F. Goldberg, Executive Secretary, 500 W. Baltimore St.,
Baltimore 21202 ( 301) 523- 7214
Maryland Board o f Ethics, Executive Branch, Anthony M. Carey,
Executive Secretary, 301 W. Preston St., Baltimore 21201
( 301) 752- 6780
Senate Comnittee on Ethics, Rm. 708, 14 Beacon St., Boston
02108 Harry Greenwal d, S t a f f Director ( 617) 727- 3831
Michigan State Board o f Ethics, Don W i l l i s , Executive
Secretary, Lewis Cass Building, 320 S. Walnut, Lansing
48909 ( 517) 373- 2104
Minnesota Ethical Practices Board, B. Allen Clutter,
Executive Director, 41 State Office Bldg., St. Paul
55155 ( 612) 296- 5148, El izabeth Ebbott, Chairperson
* MISSISSIPPI
* MISSOURI
MONTANA
NESRAS KA
NEVADA
NEVADA
* NEW HAMPSH I RE
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OH I 0
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
- 3-
Presently no ethics c m i ssion
Presently no ethics comnission
Presently no ethics comni ssion
Nebraska Accountabil i t y and D i sclosure Comnission,
11th Floor, State Capitol, P. O. Box 95086, Lincoln
68509, Executive D i rector: James Baylor ( 402) 471- 2522
Executive Ethics Cormission, P. O. Box 2900, Reno 89509
Chai rman: Bruno Henicucci ,
Legislative Ethics Comnission, Legislative Bldg.,
104 S. Carson St., Carson City 89710 Chairman: Manuel
J. Cortez
Presently no ethics comni ssion---
New Jersey Executive Comnission on Ethical Standards,
Elaine B, Goldsmith, Director, 122 W. State St., Trenton
08625 ( 609) 292- 1892
New Jersey Joint Legislative Comnittee on Ethical
Standards, William M. Lanning, Secretary and Counsel,
h. 227, Statehouse, Trenton 08625 ( 609) 292- 4625
Presently no ethics comnission. Bruce Rol stad, State
Director, Governor's Service Centers, Office of the
Governor, Santa Fe 87503 ( 505) 827- 5374
New York State Board on Publ i c Disclosure, W i l l iarn D.
Cabin, Executive Secretary, c/ o NYS Dept. o f State,
Rm. 270 Broadway, New York 10007 ( 212) 488- 4295
North Carol i na Board on Ethics, 116 W. Jones St.,
Ral ei gh 27611, Sandra L. Johnson, Executi ve Secretary
( 919) 733- 5103
Presently no ethics comnission
Ohio Ethics Comnission, Richard G. Terapak, Executive
Director, 150 E. Broad St., Columbus 43215 ( 614) 466- 7090
Senate Corrmi ttee on Ethics, Marigene Val iquette, Chai rman,
Ohio Senate State House, Col umbus, Ohio 43215 ( 614) 466- 5204
Oklahoma Ethics Comnission, B i l l Harkey, Suite 2040,
Liberty Tower Building, Oklahoma City, ( 405) 521- 3921
Oregon Government Ethics Comnission, Robert Douglas,
Executive Director, 102 Publ i c Service Bl dg., Salem
97310 ( 503) 378- 5105
Pennsylvania Board o f Ethics, Patricia Jasper, 1 iaison
representative, Pennsylvania Dept. o f Justice, Capi to1
Annex , Harri sburg 17120 ( 717) 787- 5147
RHO= ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
m TEXAS
UTAH
" VERMONT
I) VIRGINIA
WASH I NGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
D
WYOMING
D
Rhode Is1 and Confl i c t s o f I n t e r e s t Comni ssion, Rae 8. Condon,
Executive Director, 76 Dorrance St., Providence 02903
( 401) 277- 3790
South Carolina Ethics Comnission, Gary R. Baker,
Executive Director, P. O. Box 11627, Col umbi a 29211
( 803) 758- 7408
State Ethics Comnission, Secretary o f State's Office,
State Capi to1 , Pierre 57501 ( 605) 224- 3537 Carolyn Stahl ,
Executive D i rector
Secretary o f State, Gentry Crowel 1 , State Capi to1 ,
Nashvi 1 l e 37219
Office o f the Secretary o f State, Terry Reed Goodman,
Enforcement Division, State Capi to1 , Austin ( 512) 475- 5619
Presently no ethics comnission
Presently no ethics comni ssion
Presently no ethics comnission. John W. Garber, Director
of Personnel, Dept. o f Personnel and Training, 302 State
Finance Building, Richmond, V i r g i n i a 23219
! dashington State Public Disclosure Comnission, Graham E.
Johnson, Adrni ni strator, 403 Evergreen Plaza B l dg., 711
South Capi to1 Way, Olympia 98504 ( 206) 753- 1111
Presently no ethics comnission
State of Wisconsin Ethics Board, 122 W. Washington Ave.,
Madison 53703, Executive Director: R. Roth Judd
( 608) 266- 8123
Presently no ethics comnission
a
* Those states which did not respond to the questionnaire.
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALI FORNI A
COLORADO
CONNECT ICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
I DAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA EXEC.
INDIANA SENATE
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCY LEG IS.
KENTUCKY FDRC
LOU I S IANA
MAINE
MARY LAND LEG I S .
MARYLAND PDAB
MARY LAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
Act No. 130, lY/ s sesslon
AS 15.13, AS24.45, & AS 39.50
Arizona Revised Statutes 38- 561
Ark. Stat. Ann. 8 12- 3001 -- 3008
P o l i t i c a l Reform Act o f 1974, Gov. Code 8 81000, et. seq.
Executive Order
Publ i c Act 77- 600( 19? 7 General Assembly)
--------
D. C. Code T i t l e 11, Chapter 11, l l a
Florida Statute 8 112.320; Fla. Const. Art. 11
Ga. Laws 1974 pp 155- 162[( Act 803 Sec. 8( f) ( SB 454) 1
HRS Ch. 84
Executive Order # 3 ( 1977)
Publ ic Law # 4 ( I. C . 4- 2- 6)
K. S. A. 1976 Supp. 25- 4119a
KRS 6.750
Executive Order
Act 110 o f 1964 ( West's Digest T i t l e 42: 1101- etc.)
T i t l e 1, Chapter 25, Maine Revised Annot.
Art. 40, Sec. 89- 91
Md. Ann. Gode A r t . 33, 8 29- 7
Executive Order
Senate Order adopted 10/ 19/ 77
ACT 196 PA 1973
Minn. Statutes Chap. 10A
MONTANA
N EB RAS KA
NEVADA EXEC.
NEVADA LEGIS. '
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY EXEC.
NEW JERSEY LEG.
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORM CAROL I NA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO EXEC.
OHIO SENATE
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROL I NA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASH I NGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
Montana Statutes 59- 1702- 1710
Ch. 49- 1401- 14, 135 NEB RR Supra 1946
NRS 281.411 thru 281.581
NRS 281.411 thru 281.581
NJSA 52: 130- 12 et. seq.
NJSA 52: 13D- 12 et. seq.
New Mexico Statutes 5- 12- 1 t o 5- 12- 15
E. O. 10 ( 5/ 75) & 10.1 ( 10/ 76)
Executive Order
--------
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 102
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 102
ORS 244
Executive Order 1974- 6; State Adverse I n t e r e s t Act 71 P. S.
776.1 et. seq.
Rhode Island General Law, T i tl e 36, Chapter 14
Act No. 191 of 1975 ( sec. 8- 13- 10, 1976 Code of Laws)
SDCL Chapter 12- 25A
A r t i c l e 6252- 9( b), Texas Statutes
--------
RCW 42.17.350
---- d---
s. 19.41 thru 19.50, Wisconsin Statutes
SCOPE OF RESPONS IB ILI M
Ethics Code acbninistered by the Secretary of State
** State with standards of conduct statutes but no specific
comnission or agency to administer the provisions.
COVERAGE
AL AB WA
ALASKA
AR I ZONA
A2KA; lhSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORAM)
COYNECTICUT
DELARARE
FLORIDA
y
-
-
I
GEOZGIA -
r
A
I OW0 I -
y
-
Y
y y Y Y N S o m Y Y N N Y Y
N N Y N N N N Y N N N , N
y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
' P L
HAkAI I l Y , r
-
Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N
Y
-
y l v
- 1
N !
N O T
- I
N O , T
-
-
- I N O I T A ~ P LC A L E
A P L
y
N O T
N
-
C A L E
ILL: wIs i I N ~ N y ~ y N N ~ N ~ N
- -
I
Y
A t P L , C A
I t4
y N i
Y, N
C A B L E
L E
Y . y I I I ! N I N
I N C I I Y A C ~ ~ C .
INmAW s e n a t s
IOWA
KAISAS
-
Y
~ k o u n .
- -
y , y
- I
N
Y
N
- I
Y /
-
I
y
-
Y
y
N
N
N
W R Y L A I D P ~ B
wRYLaYD
I / ,
-
i / Y i N
N
-
Y
.-
K I I I U C I Y i e p l ~ .
KcvTjcKy .= ix / N
N , N / y
s mI N j
-
y / y I y / N N
-
N
Y
N
N
LOUi 5 IAYA
WIVE N
) N
N
n
NASSACHUSETTSFenatwsY N
MICHIGAN
N
Y N I
N
N
n
N
N N S o m e Y Y N
Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y N
n
Y ! Y
I I
N
N
N
N
m R * L , c v D i e p . d . y N
N Y
r
N
n
Y / N 1 N
Y
N
I
y
/ / I I
N
N
N
, N
N
r
N
y
N
r ' y
N
MINYESOTA Y Y
MISSISSIPPI
UASH D. C.
Y M Y
-
Y
N N N Y V l N N N Y N Y N
I N
N O T
Y
A / P P L I I C A / B L E
N
N N
I
~ a r . l o r n
1 1 1
I; N
N
N I Y
N / N
N
N
N
~ a e lN / N
N ) t l \ N j N I N
N / N , N
N
Y V Y Y / Y N Y N Y N Y N ~
N
COVERAGE
I
Y I S S W R l
nONTANA
YEBRASKA
YEVAOAExec.
Y
Y
Some
Y E v A a r e g l s . / Y Y I Y v
tEU HAWSHIRE
Y
' I
Y I Y
3 1 ' 1
YEY JERSEY Exe!. N
Y
Y
N I N
N
N
N , N
S o m
N
Y E U J E ~ S E Y ~ ~ Y I ! Y I Y 1 Y N
I I
VEU' 4EXICO 1 - 1 - - 1 N O \ A P ~ P L I I C A ~ ~ L E
\ i d l O l X j n j u i u j r i z r / N ! u j n
Y
- 1 - 1
Y
N
N , N N
Y
I U ) R f W c ~ ~ ~ i ~ N~ ~ ~ i y ! I j N
N N Y Y Y N N N N N V N
Some
Y
N Y
N
r
Y
N
- 1 -
Y
\ 3RTH SAKJTA ' - I - - YO^ A P P L II C A ~ L E 1 -
1
OHIO Exec. I n ! r i l Y / r ~ r i rj u r ! N
Y
~ e ( l s [ N
I
N
r
I N
+ - 1 - I
N
N i y 1 I
I N i i
r
N
N
k'hen
N L * , , ~ .
Y
N
N
N I
I OHIO sewre sen 1 Sen N Y / N / / N
Y
N
I s u w j Y I N : Y ss~ e j N . some j Y Y
I suum: raor: u! Y t I Y / I / y
SOUH ~ AKOTA I y 1 N y ione ! Y l i o r r I 1 y
------- Y- -
v ( s o - e j y i
Y
S< Li\ ilOMA [ N I N Y ~ Y
02EGON / Y [ Y i Y Y
I
I
I
Y I
I I
Y
r
Y I Y
N
I
N
Y
Y
N
N Y
TEIYESSEE 1 1 ' I j I
I 4
I
TEXAS / I ' I ' f I N ; Y ! Y
UTAH 1 - 1 - - A ~ iI j ~~ A BL' L E
VERWNT I 1 I 1 1
N
n
N
Y
7EHYSYLVANIA / N H N I Y / Y 1 N I N I N
Y ~ N / N , N
, swC SOR
, r
WYOMING
Y
-
N
-
-
N
Y I Y
N N
. l o r n , i o m
Sane
Y / Y
1
Y I N
ViRGlNIA - I - i - NO^ A d P L I I c A B L E -
WAS* INGTON / Y ISOR/ Y SOW ~ m k f f i c . Y N
YEST VIRGINIA 1 - I I ' C A B , E -
Some
Y
-
-
S a c
YI~ ci) NsIN ! I N S m N
Y
-
-
N
I N Y Y
SIANUARUS OF CONUUCl
LOU! IIAW Y Y Y Some; Y i N l i o m ! N I ' I ~ 5 toiuls d f Y N I
ALABAM
I I ! I I I I I 1
UASH D. C.
I I V I V I t
N I N I N 1 I - i
N I N I y i
I
. Y I R Y L A Y D ~ T : ~ ~ VY / N I N ~ N I Y I Y / Y I Y
M A R Y L A Y D ? ~ ~ - I 1 - ; - N O / T A ) P L i C A 1 / L E I -
V I V
ALASKA
I
WRYLAND I y ! Y i y j N i N
, v v N I N N N n v n r n n
ARIZONA A I P L
y ' y
W EY I Y / N 1 N ! Y
I
C A E L E
V
ARKANSAS
- I - I -
L I V
N O T
V
-
Y
Y
I
CALIFO~ WIA I V I N . N , N I N
I
y \ N \ v
V
v
! Y
V
Y
N
N ' V ~ N
M I s s I s s I P P I I I I I . I I I I I I I I i I
N
N 1 N Y
MICHIGAN i 1( / I I Y 1 Y
N
-
COLORADO
V
-
N
N N , Y
v
N
-
V
I
FLORI CA y : v ~ y i y ~ Y ~ y ~ v
v
N
-
N
MINNESOTA 1 - 1 - 1 - / -
N I
N
I
V ~ N ~ Ni I~ Y ,
- - N O T -
v
-
N
N O T A / P L / C A ( L E -
v
- I I -
N
N
A ~ P L I C A B L E
CO~ NECTICUT I i N j N i N
I
N I
N
I
GEOQGIA 1 - - ,, - - N O I$ A ~ P L I I C ~ ~ ~- ~ IL - E i - I - I t
I
H A 4 1 1 : ~ ~ ~ : Y 1v ~ / ~ N Y ~ y ~ ~ / I V ,1 Y
1
I
I Z w o - N O $ A P P L I ~ i A 3 ~ L E 1 - j - - 1 - j
O L E 1 . ( . . i V 0 / 1 A P , P L I ! C A B L E
N
ILL: YoIs ' - i - , - Y O : T A ~ P L ~ c A ~ L E
v
I I A A ~ ~ ~ . ~ j N j N
I ~ Di,!, u serare1
I I
I l l I j i
IOWA ' I - II - - j Noif
KANSAS I
- j - j - - i
N
A ~ ~ P L I c ~ ~ ~ ~
i n r ~ r / r j s o ~ l ~
I N
I
I j y
I I
N / 1
N i
-
1 I N I Y
-
Y
Y I N
- I -
v o
K E Y I J C K Y A ~ ~ ~ y~ j ( 1 y y / Y / Y Y v 1 Y
I- I NANLIAL UISLLUSUKt VKUVISIONS ( PART 1)
ALMAM
ALASKA +
N I Y Y
ARIZOYA* I N N N
Y
N
covvEcTlcur*/ N ' y I Y / y 1 y / Y 1 N
DELA- ARE 1 i NOIT A j P L i ~ A q L E
ARUYSAS i N i Y
t A L l r o P N I A * I N
Y
n i r / y j r j n
r
-
r
COLORADO
Y
-
Y
N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
n
ir
FLORIDA I 1 I
y , Y / V ) y I Y ; Y 1 1 I ~ o r e j ~ o n
Y
Y / N
1 SE3at IA / - 1 - } - 1 Y O ; T A p P L / c A Q L E - 1 -
Y - Y
N
n
Y / Y ~ N I Y / N
- NOIT A i P L i c A t
v I N
, - - 1 -
Y
) I
-
N
L E
~ AIAI I ~ r / y ! Y i y j y : v p / ~ , YY I Y I Y j N
I SAdO I - / - ) - ! $ OjT A ~ P L ~ c A / L E
I t
ILLI~ OIS* ~ N ~ Y ; N I Y Y / Y I Y / N
l
I I A . * N I N 1 N I Y i Y I N / Y
Y
Y
Y
- / - 1 - / - ! i -
I / 0
: NDIA\ A senate
N
' I
-
n
-
N
Y
I I
, ! I
N
Y
-
Y ! N ; N / N (
,
Y j 1 1 1 Y
.-
St41YE ~ N / Y / N / N ! N ~ N
N
ti
Disclosure statements are p u b l ~ c ~ n f o m t ~ o n .
** Only l e g i s l a t o r s ' disclosure state lents are pub1 i c tnformation.
**+ my inspect " public" statement; not confidential statement.
I OdA 1 - 1 - - I N G j T A ~ P L / c A ~ L E
N / N / N j
y
-
Y
N
-
N
-
U I ~ ~ A S * I n I r
Y
Y
N I Y ! Y \ Y ~ N I N
wPfLe\ o:. qLJr- - 1 - j ,, o! T A i ~ ~/ - i I ~- i ~- j )- 1 L- ~
N
i I
N
N
Y
-
K E ~ T ~ CLKeqYz s! - , - - N O ! T A ~ P L ~ C A ~ L E
KLYTUcZy F3Fc 1 1 v ! I / Y I Y j Y
I
WRYLAhD 2
QUI j seal N j Y s I Y / some
WRYLANO I - I - 1 - 1 N O / T A ) P L ~ C A
- 1 -
s o m j N
-
- 1 -
Y / Y ! Y j Y
LOUISIA~ A f - i - 1 - Y O I T A ~ P L ~ C A 1 - 1 - 1 -
N
L E
USSACH~ JSETTSN~ N
N
some
-
L E
N
Y
N
-
N
MICHIGAN
M14YESOTA * / N
I
Y I N -
N
Y N N Y y Y
Y ( Y
srnI N
Y I v
Y
-
N
-
N
I
Y
N i N
- I -
-
N
MISSISSIPPI I I
n ~ s ~ n . ~ . - - y( I Y
N
Some
N
Some
N 0 1 T
Y
-
N
Y
A ' P L
Y N Y
N Y
C A ( L E
Y
N N
F I NANC IAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS ( PART 1)
D i s c l o s u r e s t a t e m e n t s a r e p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n .
** In l i t i g a t i o n .
N / SOW
I I
o H I o * L x ~ c . ! N I y y y y 1 Y i N I N j Y
-
some
~ H l ~ * S e n = i Nc ~ ! Y / Y / N I N I N
OKLA. IOt44 1
1 - ! - - I sob A ~ ! P L : C A B ~ L E1 -
I O R E M N * I N j Y / n j r I r r ~ r / ~ \ n
PENNSYLVANIA j - - ! - j Y o IT A P L i, c A S! t E I -
I
RHODE I S L A Y O * / N / / N Y y j N / Y /
N + j N
N
Y
-
N
N
SOUTHCP~ OLIU~ N ! Y I N 1 Y N 1 Y h j Y Y
I
SWTH: I* OTA~ N I y Y ' N : h , N I N
' I I I
TE~ YESSEE 1 a [ : , 1 . (
I
TEXAS * ! N ! I , Y : I / Y l Y ' I i N
UTAH i - 1 - , - N O / T A ~ P L I ' C A ~ ~ IL - E
1
- -
y i Y
some/ N , N j N
N I N ~ NN I
i I
I j y l N j
Y
-
-
N
-
-
N
-
VERWNT i ! i i l ! I
N
VIRGINIA 1 - -
Y
-
11 I N / I Y N N N Y
- -
WISCONSIN N
-
s n r
- 1 -
- / N O T
WYOMING
s m
A ~ P L I C A ~ L E
~ A s H I N G T o N - j N I y 1 s o ~ j ' i
-
-
r / s m Y ; Y 1 N
uESTVIRGINIA~ - I - 1 - I A d P L ~ j c A ~ / L f - -
F INANCIA1 DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS ( PART 2)
. . *** May Inspect " public" statement. not c o n f ~ d e n t i a l statement.
N
Y
ALABAM
ALASKA
ARIZONA '
ARUYSAS
IUISSACAUSLTTS~ n
I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I
n r
Y
MICHIGAN
N
C A L I F C R Y I A *
c c L o ; u w
COY'IECTICLT*
N
N Y
Y
Y
N I N / r
-
N
-
N
-
H I Y Y E S O T A * , N N
M I S S I S S I P P I 1
- Y
+ Disclosure statements are publ'c information.
** l e a i s l a t o r r ' d ~ s c i o < u r es tatements are public information.
V
SELARARE
FL3R13A *
' N
-
N
N
Y
r
Y
I
N j N 1 N I Y
A ~ ( P L ( C A $ L E
r l l s . w o
N [ 1 6 8 0
Y
Y
Y
-
N Y
- 1 N O T
V ) y
-
N
-
N
Y I P O O O )
- 1 -
N ! 2w,
N ( Y I Y ' N
,
N / N / Y
1 I
N
y
GE39GIA
!
Y
/ Y I Y 1 N 1 N i N / S m j N 1 N I N Y 1 2 9 . 0 9 d
Y
S o m e N N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y
N N N N N N N N N N N Y
Y
-
N
N
- 1 - - / N O I T A ~ P P L ! I C A ~ L E- / I - i - 1 - 1 - 1
T- r / PO+
N j 8 W
Y 1 Y
- 1 - 1 - 1
N
N
Y I N 1 N / N 1 Y I Y
- N O ~ T
HLiAII** ! Y
-
N
N
~ ~ ~ L j ci Ei \
N \ N / Y \ Y j~ / N I Y ; Y i y / I / y j j
N O ! T A ~ P L
- 1 - 1
:; Ah0 I - , - i - 1 N Q ' T A F P L I C A ~ L E ~ - i - ! - j _ - j
I
N N
C A I -
N
L E
N N N
/ O O P ~ A ~ AA / A A N ~ N I N ~ A ~ N a SVY~ I
I I I I i
I I 325534'.? 1
I h l N ' A N N N N ] N [ N ; N i N l ' J J C j
1 I ;. uL, d Vl" 7C ilircs
I OOL? A j A N N N N N i N j N / N i N j * ~ I X W- L ~ OS
I
j O Q'II N A / A A A N [ A / A / A / N i t i , I N :. PI:~ SI 3ccsr
1 - 1 - - 1 - - 3 1 ~ 1 1I 3 1 1 d l1i 0~ N j - 1 - - 1 V!'. YRlA5'. 43d / occr N A I\ N N N N ! h i ~ j I t i j N : ( i / h ' i m t i c
j - - 3 I B b I / 1 l d b W LION Vn" n',' I:> G
I ; E t N / A N N / N / N 1 N 1 A A N + JP-~ Z. OiK
I
/ O G 3 f , N i N j A A A 1 N A N / N \ N . N \ N , . J ~ x : + 0 1 ~ 0
I I ! - I - - I - - 3 i p v ) p l d Ip v 1
1 SIP N bsroesl N A A N / N I N A j N A , N * V. I~~ UhiY&@~'.
I I
i OCOE A fsnodS N I N N N I A ! A A A r ~ & ~ 1 I I ! I - - 1 - 1 - - 3 1 8 V 3 / 1 1 d n V l l O N 1 - j - I - 03IX: n P3'.
I - I -
I - - I l d dO N~ - j - I - S I ~ + - Z A3SE3C PJ'.
, I
A A N N N N N A ( A h i N 1 A':::! AlSEjTn34
t I
I I 3tlIuSdeC R3N
I N A N N N N N N I N N N N jsrba: . VCVl3h
I
j N A N N N
I
/ N N N N A N A N I A
- 3 1 8 1 3 1 1 d d V
Y O N I - I - - ! WVlkCk
I I - I I IU~~ OSS~ H
I
ADV 1 SORY OP I NlONS AND COMPLA l NTS
/ / / DISCLOSURE / / PROHIBITIONS !
I
GEORGIA 1 - 1 - - I N O I T A ~ P L ~ C A- I~ - L E I
1 I i I HAWAII 1 ~ / ~ o: j -~ I -~ l 1~ 5 ~ 1 ~ 1I ~ 3
ARKANSAS A 1 A ! A
KANSAS I y / y i N ) - I / 5 0 1 4 7 ( 3 1 1 0 - 1 - 1 j
N/ A
75
N o T
I --
' T o o 7
wssAcHilsETTs1 Y I y ! n / 3 / 1 I -
1
Y / N
- I -
CALIFORNIA
coLoR.. m
1 N/ A
/ 100
A + P L
Y
-
CONNECTlWT
OELAXARE
NEY 1 -
A ) P L I C A
* N ,::
- i - 1 - 1 N O ' T
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
WASH D. C.
FLORIDA I Y Y : N 1 2 0 0 1 / 10 / 0
-
5
c A E L t
TOO -
L E
v
Y
TOO
10
-
9 5
-
-
50
Y I N
NEW
-
1 0 1
Y 15- 3C
N/ A
10
-
0 1 50
N
-
,
70
-
-
0
-
- 1 -
-
10
-
8 4 4
7 0 0
N/ A
10
- 1 -
,
5
.-
5
ADVI SORY OPI N IONS ArUl CONPLAINTS
-
-
-
250
- MISSOURI
WNTANA
N EB RAS KA
NEVADA
NEVADA kgls,
NEV htWPSHIRE
-
-
-
-
Y
Y
Y
I
NEW JERSEY - 1 Y
- I N O I T A d P L J c A B 1 L E
I
N 1 1 3 0 / 1 0 1 - 1 -
- j - I - 1 - ! I
NEW * ExIco ( - ( -
-
-
-
-
,1 0
l o
NEUYORK 1 7
1
-
Y Y N -
N
N
- j _
- I -
Y
NORTH CAROLIYP/ Y
I
NOUH DAKOTA / -
v 250 1
P L I C A q L E
I
OHIO E x e c .
OHIO senate
OKLSriOrA
- I h o 4 A ~ P L I ! C A ~ , L E 1 - I - - I -
t I
Y , N 1 2 5 1 ? 5 5 : 5 5 / - ! ~ 2 0 ! 1 01 10
I -
-
Y
Y
Y
v
N
1
~ W ~ C A P O L I MII I I 1 II j 63 I ! 15 i 9 / 6
-
-
-
-
-
N
N 1 10 1 o 1 - I I
-
N
, 1 , - I 1
-
- - 1 / O 1 0 1 0
I ,
N - I ! ' i/ A VIA N/ A
l o 1 0 1 0 I
OREGON i
I
25 ,
Y
10
@ ST
, / 1 5 ! ! o I - j -
N
1s
? Eh\ S~ LYAYIA
- I
I I -
S O N
N / I I 1
-
I * / N 1 7- 8 I Y/ A Y/ A 1 YIA
/ N ) z l o j i O / - / -
SWTH DAKOTA / Y ' r 1 N 5 1 45 : LO 1 - j
-
RHODEISLAND , v
, Few
G
7 - 1 1
TIYYESSEE j
, I
I ! ; j i I (
- ! -
Few
i i
1
TEXAS - I _ I I NI N I N j - i 1 2 I - 1 2
UTAH - 1 - I - N O T A ~ P L I ~ C A B [ L L
V E M N T ! I
VIRGINIA
! i
- - - N O T A P P L ~ C A B / L E
- - -
WASHINGTON - 1 7 s T i L I 25
]_
- ' I _
-
1 - -
- I
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
A P P L I ~ C A B L E
O I - 0
WEST VIRGINIA - - - 1 N O T
_
WISCONSIN
WYOMING A P P L I ~ C A B L E
Y N V 5 0
I
- -
1 NVEST IGATORY POWERS, HEAR I NG PROCESS, AND PENALT 1 ES
A L A B M Y N Y Y S W N - N N N N Y
ALASKA Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y
ARIZONA Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y
ARKANSAS , N/ A I N N N/ A N N/ A , N/ A N N , N I Y
I
I
CALIFORNIA Y Y N Y S o r n e Y Y Y Y ~ Y Y
COLO~ DO - - N O T A ' P L : . C AI ~ L E - - 1 - , I - ,
CO'thECTICUT Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y / N l Y
DELAJARE - - - N O , T A ' P L C A / L E / - I - I -
FLORIDA I y N ~ y ~ y ! s o m /~ Y I I I n I y / y I N /
GEORGIA / - I - 1 - N O T A ' P L ~ C A ~ L E- - I - / -, _ I
HA~ AI I J Y Y N Y N I S / Y N I n [ Y i n
; 3MO I _
I
iLL! YOIS I N/ A
I
N
-
ti
N l N j N j N I
I\ II !
_ j _ i _ l -
N / N ~ Y ~ j Y
Y I N
1 1
A P P L / c n / L r I -
j I s m
I+ D! 4M E x e c . : Y I N I Y 1 Y 1 Y
N O T
N/ A
I\ D: ANA se. xat
I
IWA I -
KAYSAS
I
KEFiTJCUY Legiq. N/ A
-
N/ A
A ) P L / C A / L E
I
KEYTUCUY F3RCl s m
N ~ T
N Y / N l Y ] Y i Y 1
-
N Y
Y Y N Y Y
1 WA
y
I
- 1 - 1 - j -
N N
N
N ,
N/ A
I
LOUISIANA f Y Y
N
N I
-
I
6 0 v . j N
M I N E ! y
Y
I
N \
4 - . y
Y
N ~ N I Y , Y
I Y /
y i 1 Y
Y j Y / N ' N /
N
N
HAIIPYLANDL~; L/ Y.
wRyLMD PDUl
N ~ N ! N ~ 1 N
WRYLAhD
w s A C H U S E n S
WICHIGAN
MINYESOTA
CIISSISSIPPI
MASH D. C.
N / Y 1
Y
Y
I
I Y I
Ltd. i N I 1 1
Y I N / N ~ Y ~ i N
Sonc Y I N ~ Y ~ YI / Y
Y N Y Y Y , I N I 1 Y
I N I N / Y I Y i
N
Y
I
N I Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y N Y N
N
I
N
Y .
1 I N I N I N I N t n
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y Y I N
Y N Y
Y N
I -
Y I Y Y
I ENESTIGATORY POWERS, HEAR I NG PROCESS, AND PENALTIES
GENERAL I NFORHAT ION
COPrPlISSIOh MEMBERSHIP
APP0: NTED BY:
-
-
-
A L A B m
A w l 3 v
N O T A P P L I C A B L E
r
-
-
y
-
-
-
- AR I ZONA i 8 4 y r .
ARKANSAS
51
s
CALIFORNIA 1 5
COLORaDO
COLIYECTICUT
5 y r . Y
5yr.
2 , - , - 1 3 1 4 0 i 1 . 3 f l 4 1 .
I - N O / T A ? P L { C A ( L E j - -
I I
3 1 4 1 - I - 1 1 - I 5 0 , O W
4 .
-
I I
I 1 N
- 1 - 1 - I I
I
7 4
N
/ I i
I
! N I
1 y
7 1ioz. 0~ 0
6 1314, o+
A f p L ( c A E / L E 1 - 1 -
- 1 - , I 1 8 b15.3Q I j 1 1 1 !
0ELAdQ. E I - 1 - I - ; N O T
1
I
l o , o q
FLORiDA Z y r j 5 1 4
I
I I * I 1
SE3RCIA 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 A $ P L I I C A B i L E I - I -
IAUAI I 1 5 4 Y / - 1 - I - 1 I I 1
1 4 : 9 0 , 0 3 p
I
! 3AHO 8 - I / - - j p , d p L J C A g i L E j - -
1 - 2 , - 1
P
- , I
I 1~ 1
- I - - j
urspe - I I
ILL: LIOIs : 3 iLe,! y i - i - ! - 1 1 3 7 0 I j - i
~ H:::+ A " v . j 5 1 l y r . j Y
I + 3 1 a u 2qi. i 1 /
- 1 - 1 - I 1 / zI.:+ j jI me
,
I O i A I -
UN5AS / 11
I I I I I
I \ I 1
- j -
2 y r . I 5
E yl S 9
I
1 1 :' II
I I I
N a b A d P L i i c A B , i L t ! - - I - I - l y I
1
6 1 - 1 - j I1 5+ i d 6 , ~ ~ b I 1 i~ I
I
I I I
- KE-* TU CKY'X h. 5 5 3yrs
Iyr. - 3 - I 6 ! I 1 30,235 I I
I ' h I
I
y
I ' Y
I
- I - iI - I1 I 15 / 9 SJa i
LOUISIAU 3 6 . 1
PAINE 7 2 I - 6
2
- ! 1 : 1 1 j 7 , ~ ; b I I N I
- 1 - i - 1I - i
PARYLiN3 k g ~ s . lo - 1 - - - 1 : Y j / 1 1 - 1 9
! v
* ARYL* D ~ 3 . 4! ~ 5 / pjr. I 1 1 4
I 1 I
-
y
-
-
-
MARYLiM 1 9 1 4 y r . 1 Y
- : - i ! + I - , , - ,
I
-
Y
Y
-
NASSACHUSETTS f 5 1 zyr.
- / -
4yr.
4yr.
M I C r i I a N
1 1 1 3 0 . d J
I f I
-
WASH D. C. 3
7 -
MIhYESOTA 6
MISSISSIPPI
Y '
I I
i ' r c I
! I I I
Y ! -
2 / 3 2 . 0 0
1
i
- 1
I
l0,00b
6 t47. GO
1
, 30 1) 85.6$
GENERAL INFORMATION
C mWEUBERSH !?
APPOINTED BY:
MISSOURI I I I I
ro% TkU I - I - N O ; A P P L I C A B L E a - - I - I -
I Ov. ' ec. uf S t a t e ! I
hEBWKA 8 6 . r e - r \ + 3 5 920, OOp I / N
NEVADA Exec. 6 4 y r . Y - - - 0 5.00
NEYKN &? is.! 1 . - Y I - I - 1 0 I 5.00b I - I
NEM IXYPSHIRE 1 1 1 1
unspe - I
~ ~ t s ~ y f/ i .7 jlfleda - - - 4 1 8 3 . 0 3 ~ j , N
IN J E ~ E 2Y9 .1 g ( 2 y r . - Y - , - j 4 0 ! erna ah
i
' is KxICO - 1 - I - 1 U O 1 A P P L I ' C A B ! L E ! - i - I - - 1 I
I I , d d r t de-
YFd YORK I 7 / 4 y r . , 4 / - 1 - 1 3 ; 150, OO 1 i c ~ s i o d: i n5
ursped- I
WRIWC: ROL: U~ 5 ;, f,&: y 1 - I - I - 1 1 2 ! 42,: 9b , I I I ! I I
I
0 1 - - ! - N o i A ~ P i I ! c i \ s l i E 1 - - i _ j - j _
OHIO Exec. ; 6 . y 1 - I - I - i ! 11 ~ : u . o o ~ ; I
I Y ! I I
OAIO jenscc j 6 j 2 y t . j -
OKLL- 3c14 1 6 1 2 y r . j Z
i - ! - j - ! - : - !
I I
- - I - 1 - 1 - 1
UTAH I - I - i - 1 NAOP i P L I ! iC A B , LI E
I
Y 1 - I - i I - I j I- ,
I I
VERMONT 1 I
4 I - I -
I
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRSIhIA
,
I I I N 1 I
3 :) o. so~ i I / N I, I
l j - I i P e r l a p
OREiSN i 7 1 ~ y rI . i 3 i 4 j - , - i
PEN\ SYLVA~ IA I I I 4 y r . Y
i ! I ! I
5 -
- / -
U 0 3 E ISLAND 9 y r
SOUTH C A ? O L I/ ~ 6 1 $ 1'. ' y
VIRGINIA
YISCONSIW ' 6
- j - - 1
- / -
5 y r .
u Y o n I n t
I
WLT* i'KOTA i 9 1 1 y r . / 3 I 4 1 - 1 I I 1 i i9, cab
1 1
f ! - I
N O I T A q P L i C A $ L E
Y
-
6 y r . -
, 3 I: 9D, CH) I ! I \ j
I - j - - 1 3 j s 7 , s o p I I r /
I
I
-
N O '
I I
Y
y
-
- 1 - 1 - 1
P L i I c A B L E
j ~ e r n a d s
3 17z. oob 1
-
- I
A P P L I C A B L E
TEh. IES5EE I I
b62. OD\ 1
-
I / I 1 t I
TEXAS / - 1 - I N O ; A P ~ P L - I ! 1 / A : 1
APPENDIX 11
CHAPTER 3.1
STXKDARDS FOR FIXASCIAL DISCLOSURE
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
scc.
38- 54]. Definitions.
38- 542. Duty to file financial disclosure statement; exceptions.
38- 543. Duty to file financial disclosure statement by candidate for public
off ice.
38- 544. Violations ; penalties.
38- 535. Local public officers financial disclosure.
ARTICLE 2. ETHICS BOARD
3$- 561. Ethics boai- d ; appointment : terms ; compensation ; organization-al
meeting: vacancy: personnel.
3s- 562. Powel- s and duties of the board: complaint; hearing.
38- 56:;. Education and i~~ fol- matiopnr oprams by board.
ARTICLE 3. LEGISL- 4TIVE ETHICS CO> l! lIITTEE
3d- 5Sl. Legislative ethics committees ; duties.
Chnj~ tc, 2' .1. c o , ~ ~ i ~ t0i1)' A? rgt icle I . sectiok~ s3 8- 541 to 38-
5;;. Article 2, sccticiiis 38- 561 to 3666.3. Artielc 3. section
38- 561. 1c'n. s crddfd bll Lfl l!. s 197;, Ch. 199, 5 5.
ARTICLE 1. GEXER- SL PROYISIOSS
Articld 1 . co~~ sist; toiyf sectiotis 36- 541 to d b 4 : 5 , iras add-rd
by Lrrttes 197;. CIa. 199, $ 5.
5 38 - 54 1. Definitions
In this chapter. unless the contest otherwise requires:
1. " Board" means the ethics board established pursuant to E 38-
561.
1. " Compensation" means money. tangible thing of value or fi-nancial
benefit.
3. " Immediate family" means the public official's spouse and any
minor child of whom the public official has legal custody.
4. " Public officer" means a member of the legislature and any
judge of the court of appeals and the supelior court, or a person hold-ing
an elective office. the constituency of which embraces the entire
geographical limits of the state of Arizona. Members of congress
shall not be deemed to be public officers as defined in this paragraph.
5. " Local public officer" means a person holding an elective office
of an incorporated city, tou- n or county.
Added Laws 1974, Ch. 199. 8 5.
1 07
Hlstarlcrl Notr
lmF. o . r. e ee fnfeocreti froel lo{ wla tine^ o 4f . XLLn-* ar2s. 1974, Ch. R~ Pvtl~ srrzrt'~ sNa ontttor : n~ rthorit~ o. f section 41-
lRtY. tl3 " l~ cirnprnph" \ vats * ubstituted for ,,
" wtion" In pnrflprnph 4.
§ 38- 542. Duty to file financial disclosure statement; excep
A. In addition to other statements and reports required by law.
evev public officer. ss a matter of public record, shall file with the
secretary of state on a form prescribed by the secretary of state a
verified statement disclosing:
1. The name of the public officer and each member of his immedi-ate
family and all names under which they do business.
2. Identification of each employer and of each other source of
compensation amounting to more than one thousand dollars annually
received by the public officer and his immediate family in their own
names, or by any other person for the use or benefit of the public of-ficer
or his immediate family and a brief description of the nature of
the services for n- ilich the conlpeusation tvas ~ eceived. except that
this paragraph shall not be construed to require the disclosure of in-formation
that may be privileged by law nor the disclosure of individ-ual
items of compensation that constitute a portion of the gross in-come
of the business or profession from which the public officer or
his immediate family derives compensation.
3. The name of every corporation, trust, business trust, partner-ship,
or association in which the public officer and his immediate
family, or any other person for the use or benefit of the public offi-cer
or his immediate famiiy, have an investment or holdings of over
one thousand dollars at fair market value as of the date of said state-inent,
or in which the public officer or his immediate farnily holds
any office or has a fiduciary relationship, together with description
of the investment, office or relationship, except that this paragraph
does not require disclgsure of the name of any bank 01- other financial
institution with which the public officer or member of his immediate
family has a deposit or withdrawal share account.
4. All Alizona real property interests including street address,
specific location and approximate size or legal description to which
either the public officer or his immediate family holds legal title, or a
beneficial interest in. excluding his residence and property used pri-marily
for personal I- ecreation by the public officer or his immediate
family.
5. The names of all persons to whom the public officer and his
immediate family, in their own names cjr in the name of any other
person, owe more than one thousand dollars, except that this para-graph
sllall not be construed to require the disclosure of debts owed
108
1 , I a. 3.1 FINASCIAL DISCLOSURES § 38- 543
by the public officer or his immediate family resulting from the ordi-nary
conduct of a business or profession, nor debts on the residence
of the public officer or his immediate family, nor debts arising out of
secured transactions for the purchase of consumer goods. nor debts
secured hy cash values on life insurance, nor debts owed to relatives.
6. The identification of all accounts receivable exceeding one
thousand dollars held by the public officer and his immediate family
in their own names, or by any other person for the use or benefit of
the public officer or his immediate family. This paragraph shall not
be construed to require the disclosure of information that may be
privileged by law, nor the disclosure of debts owed to the public offi-cer
or his immediate family resulting from the ordinary cmduct of a
business or pi- ofession.
7. The source of each gift of more than five hundred dollars re-ceived
by the public officer and his immediate family in their own
names during the preceding twelve months, or by any other person
for the use or benefit of the public officer or his immediate family
except gifts received by will or by virtue of intestate succession, or
received by way of distribution from any inter vivos or testamentary
trust established by a spouse or by an ancestor, 01' gifts received from
relatives. Political campaign contributions shall not be constl- ued as
gifts.
8. A description of all professional. occupational and business li-censes
in ivhich either a public officer or his immediate family has an
interest, issued by any Arizona state department, agency, commis-sion,
institution, or instrumentality. including the name in which the
license is issued, the type of business 01- profession, and its location.
B. The statement required to be filed pursuant to this section
sliall be filed by each candidate for public office by September 1,
1971. and thereafter on or before the thirty- first day of January of
each year except that in the case of a public officer appointed to fill a
vacancy within fifteen days following the filling of such vacancy.
Added Laws 1974, Ch. 199. 5.
Historical Note
I'or c. ffrctlve date of Laws 1974. Ch.
1! 11. * ub liotr iollo\\ iilp f W- 312.
5 38 - 543. Duty to file financial disclosure statement by csndi-dat*
for public office
A candidate for public office as specified in subsection 4 of 8 38-
5- 41 shall file the financial disclosure statement containing the infor-mation
required as set forth in 3 3- 42 on a form prescribed by the
secretary of state at the time of filing of nomination papers.
Xddcd Laws 1974, Ch. 199.8 5.
Historical Not#
Fur c. fiertivc. date of Laas 1974. CC
I!*. see riote follouing f 35- 302.
109
9 38- 544 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ~ i t l 3t8
5 38 - 544. violations; penalties
I
I Any public officer or candidate who fails to file a financial discl*
sure statement required by S § 38- 512 and 38- 5- 13 or who knowingly
I ; and intentionally files an incomplete financial disclosure statement or
who knowingly and intentionally files a false financial disclosure
statement is guilty of an offense punishable by a fine of not less than
three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollal- s or confine-ment
in the county jail for up to thirty days.
Added Laws 1974. Ch. 199. 3 5.
Hlstorlcrl Notr
For effective tlnfe of I.;~ rra 1974. Ch. Revlsrr's Note:
1W.. ; ec? nore rollorring 1 XG'fl2. 1' 11rs11nnrr c, ;~ utl~ orir. nrf iecrion 41-
l: Cc). o? ', iil~ a\ vir~ glr\"\' ; IS aubstitutrtl for
" L~ ro\ r. lir~ glri" n ttl- o ~ I ~ z ~ ; I I ~ w + .
I $ 38 - 545. Local public officers financial disclosure
Sotwithstanding the provisions of any law. charter, or ordinance
to the contrary. every incorporated city. town or county shall by ordi-nance.
rule. resolution, or regulation adopt standards of financial dis-closure
consistent with the provisions of this chapter applicable to
public officers.
. i. dded Laws 1974. Ch. 199, 5 5.
Historical Note
For vffwtire ( lute of L; i\ rs 1974, Ch.
l!?,. - ee note follutvino I .%%.
ARTICLE 2 ETHICS BOARD
Article 2, consisting of sections 38- 561 to .38- 563, tcns add-ed
by Lnlcs 1975, Ch. 199. § 5.
8 38 - 56 1. Ethics board; appointment; terms; compensation:
organizational meeting; vacancy; personnel
A. There shall be an ethics board consisting of eight members a p
pointed by the governor pursuant to 5 38211. No more than four
members so appointed shall be members of the same political party.
So member may be appointed to the board or continue to serve as a
member of the board who is a public officer. Of the members first
appointed to the board, two not of the same political party shall be
appointed for a term ending the third & Ionday in January of 1976,
two not of the same political party shall be appointed for a terq end-ing
the third > Ionday in January of 1977, two not of the same politi-cal
party shall be appointed for a term ending the third Monday in
January of 1978, and two not of the same political party shall be a p
pointed for a term ending the third bionday in January of 1979.
110 -
ETHICS BOARD
Thereafter all appointments shall be for a term of four years. A va-cancy
caused by other than expiration of the term shall be filled in
the same manner as organization appointments and shall be for the
duration of the unexpired term. All appointments to fill vacancies
shall be of persons of the same party as the persons to be replaced.
B. Members sl~ alrle ceive compensation determined pursuant to ti-tle
36, chapter 4, articles 1' and 2.'
C. The board shall meet within two weeks after all members have
been appointed at a time and place determined by the got- einor. The
board shall elect a chairman and such other officers as it deems nec-essary.
Thereafter the board shall meet at the call of the chairman
or upon written request of the majority of the members.
D. A majority of the members of the board constitutes a quorum.
S o action shall be taken by the board without concurrence of a ma-jority
of the members. The board shall adopt rules and regulations
govetning its procedures.
E. The h a r d may appoint an executive secretary and such other
technical, professio~ lala nd clerical employees as are necessary to car-ry
out the duties of the hard.
. ldded Laws 1974. Ch. 199. 5.
1 Sccrion 38401 et seQ
: Section 3- 21 et seq.
Historical Note
F. tr effectit- c d: ttc of L:~ n. i 1974. Ch.
I!**. dr note fnllon. ing 4 R c 7 i 1 2 .
§ 38 - 562. Powers and duties of the board; complaint; hearing
- 4. The board shall receive and ma>- initiate complaints and
charges against public officers except as otherwise provided in this
section for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or
for conduct alleged to l> e in violation of article 1 of this chapter. All
comalaints including those of the board or any of its nlembers shall
Le in writing and verified by the con~ plainant.
B. The board may investigate information provided on the finan-cial
statement of a public officer. The board shall have the power to
administer oaths and may request production of relevant infoimation
by subpoena.
C. The board shall hold a hearing within ninety days after a corn.
plaint is filed. If the board finds that the facts alleged in the com-plaint
are not true, it shall dismiss the complaint and a copy of the
report of such dismissal shaIl be sent to the person filing the com-plaint,
the public officer against whom the complaint is filed and the
governor. If the board finds based upon a preponderance of the evi-dence
that there is probable cause to believe that the facts alleged in
the complaint are tlue and constitute a violation of this chapter or a
violation of article 1 cf this chapter, it shall report its findings to the
111
§ 38- 562 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ESIPLOYEES Title 38
person filing the complaint, the public officer against whom the com-plaint
is filed, the governor and to the appropriate law enforcement
agency for proceedings in prosecution of such violations.
D. Yot less than fifteen days before the date of the hearing, a no-tice
shaU be sent by certified mail to the public officer against whom
the complaint is directed informing him of the date. time and place of
the healing and containing a statement of the charges and the law
which the public officer is alleged to have violated. The hearing
shall be conducted in the same manner as hearings conducted in ac-cordance
s- ith title 41, chapter 6, article 1.' The public officer shall
be given an opportunity to be represented by counsel, to examine the
evidence against him, to produce evidence, to call and subpoena wit-nesses
in his defense and to cross- examine witnesses. The h a r d
shall have a stenographic record made of the hearing. ,
E. The hearing shall be open to the public except in cases where
the public officer named in the complaint requests a confidential
hearing. ,411 papers, records, affidavits and documents upon any
complaint. inquiry or investigation relating to the proceedings of the
boaid sl~ allb e sealed and kept confidential only if the public officer
named in the complaint requested a confidential hearing.
F. Complai~ itsa lleging a violation of article 1 of this chapter, by
a judicial officer of the state shall be reported to the comlllission on
judicial qualifications and the supreme court for such action as may
Ix determined pursuant to Article V1. I. Constitution of Arizona.
G. Co~ nplaintsa lleging a violation of article 1 of this chapter by a
Illember of tile legislature shall be reported to the president of the
senate or the speaker of the house for appropriate action by that
body's legislative ethics committee.
- 4dded Laws 1974, Ch. 199. $ 5.
1 Section 41- 1001 et seq.
Historical Notr
For effective ( late of Laws 1374. Ch. w t i o n heading Iwtn'wn " cornplaint"
1! a. - c r note following 3 W'At2. ;~ nd" he: lri~ jg" a nd " V1. I" wits substitut-ed
for " 8.1" in the test of subsection F.
Reviser's Notr:
Pt~ r* uant to ;~ iltlority of section 41-
I: 1t-+. rrl ; I qmi- colon was inserted in the
§ 38 - 563. Education and information programs by board
The ethics board may rec'ommend legislation relating to ethics, con-flicts
of interest, and financial disclosure, and render advisory opin-ions
with regard to questions concerning these matters. The board
shall provide a continuing program of education and info~ mationc on-cerning
ethics, conflicts of interest, and financial discIosure.
Added Laws 1974, Ch. 199, S 5.
Hlstorleal Notr
For cffcctire date ot Law8 1974, Ch.
1W. see note following 1 S302.
112
Ch. 3.1 LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMSIITTEE 5 38 - 581
ARTICLE 3. LEGISL. 4TIVE ETHICS CO3IJIITTEE
- Article J, ~ o t ~ s i s t i toif! s~ c ctio) l .; 8- 581. CIS ndded by Lnt!. s
1975. Ch. 199. 5 5.
5 38 - 58 1. Legislative ethics committees; duties
A. There shall be a house of representatives ethics committee a p
pointed by the slnaker of the house of representatives and a senate
ethics committee appointed by the president of the senate. Each
committee shall be conljlosed of five members, with at least two mem-bers
of the majority and two nlen~ be~ o. sf the minority. Each rnenl-ber
shall serye at the pleasure of the appointing authority. A sacan-cy
in either committee shall be fiI1ed in the same manner as an origi-nal
appointment.
B. The men1bel. s of each committee shall have those polvers alld
duties provided by the rules of the house of ~. ep~- esentatio~ re = th e
senate, as the case may be.
Added Laws 1974. Ch. 199. I 3.
Historical Note
APPENDIX I11
SXCERPTS FROM THE JAN. 26, 1979 ETHICS BOARD MEETING
COMMENTS OF BOARD MEMBER MYLES STEWART:
I do not feel that the State Ethics Board ought to be actively in-vestigation.
I agree with Mr. McGee that its highest and best function
would be to issue advisory opinions. As Penny has said and I think
this state needs those kinds of advisory opinions. The few items that
have come to our attention, even though we didn't have jurisdiction,
seem to focus on the lack of one source for advisory opinions in the
area of our responsibility.
The State Statute that set up this Board included section 38- 545 which
says " notwithstanding the provision of any law, charter or ordinance to
the contrary, every incorporated city, town or county shall by
ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation adopt standards of financial
disclosure consistent with the provisions of this chapter applicable to
public officers." Now what they seem to be saying is we're going to set
up a state board to deal with nine state officers but we're instructing
all local entities, and governing bodies to set up rules and regulations,
and adopt standards of financial disclosure. I am not sure that that is
best, cheapest, most efficient way in this state to compile a body
of advisory opinions because you are going to get a lack of uniformity
and the kind of approach which leads to some rebound of a super agency
that reviews the ones from X country, Y county, City A, Town B and finds
that there is an inconsistency and so it only results in some conflict
and that really requires more public money and time to resolve.
If we were to be asked to issue advisory opinions, I still believe that
we should not become an active investigative body. I think that the
State already has the, primarily the A. G. office that has investigators,
and that has prosecutors. You don't need to reinvent the wheel in
terms of this state ethics board. Why not leave us in the advisory
function or even maybe the hearing function. And that way develop a
body of substantial, believeable, useable parameters of conflict of
interest and standards of financial disclosure. That is my second point
about this particular statute. It seems to speak only to standards of
financial disclosure but I think that the purpose of State Ethics
boards around this nation has been broader. I would see this board with
very little more budget, if any, than it has now being able to perform
that kind of function and in the event that this board received a
complaint with respect to whatever standards the legislative arm of
this state chose to set up in the event we receive such a complaint,
it would then automatically go to the A. G. office with our recommen-dation
that it involves some violation of those standards and ask
that he proceed with an investigation. That's the way I would see it
in the state of Arizona, the least expensive and yet the most competent
and productive way for this board to function. I believe that that
is pretty much what has been the concensus of the discussion of this
board over the last three or four years and the only reason that we
asked certain rather penetrating questions to the A. G. a couple of
years ago was that we couldn't see the legislative intent. It seemed
to point one way and then another. It said we may investigate and we
may proceed with prosecution, but clearly we had to know what our
responsibility to the peop> e was and is and so we aksed the A. G. and
Excerpts from the Jan. 26,
1979 Ethics Board meeting
Page Two
COMMENTS OF BOARD MEMBER MYLES STEWART ( concl'd)
got a response which you have copies of, is that correct. I still go
back to what is my great personal and very severe feeling that those in
this state that believe we have a state Ethics board or ethics panel
probably are under some very grave misapprehensions about what we really
are designed to do with respect to their benefit in controlling con-flict
of interest and controlling standards of financial disclosure. I
would, if I were not involved with this assume that this board has
general jurisdiction and was designed to help elected public officials
particularly on the local level who haven't got a lot of experience
in these issues, and help them to build a body of opinion that will
give them guidelines; and so I say I am extremely concerned that that
is what people think and if its not the sense of the legislature of
this state that such a state ethics board needs to exist, fine! If
we are going to be apparently such a board and really nothing, then I
can't see the sense in continuing. Those last comments were mine
personally.
COMMENTS OF BOARD MEMBER MARILYN WELKER:
Basically I think I agree with just about everything that's been said.
I don't want to be a prosecutor or an investigator or even a judge; but
I don't know many other vehicles in the state in which, if there is a
complaint, as was mentioned, it can be aired and given either a vote
that it is no good or it is worth pursuing. And it is for that reason,
if none other, I would like to see the committee continue to exist. To
provide a vehicle if one is needed for someone to have their say to
somebody who could then do something else about it. I personally
don't think that we need an investigative staff. I don't want to be
part of something that would be overseeing that. I would like to decide
if it was worthy of investigation and then assign it to somebody else.
COMMENTS OF BOARD MEMBER PENNY BRAUN:
I am particularly interested in our getting into the function of ad-visory
opinions. I see that as probably one of the biggest services
that we could do. I think there are a lot of questions on a lot of
levels of government as to where a person steps over the line into
conflict of interest. Its often very difficult for the Board that they
sit on to feel comfortable about making a ruling as to whether a
particular member should be voting or not and I would see that that
sort of thing which is not the witch hunting kind of thing but an
advisory position might be a very appropriate function and probably
one that is fairly much needed.
Fxcerpts from the Jan. 26,
1979 Ethics Board meeting
Page Three
COMMENTS OF BOARD ? PIEMBER ROBERT PROCHNOW
Because of the size of our budget there'is no way we could pursue in-vestigations
unless there were arrangements made to some kind of legal
counsel, either legal counsel through the A. G. office or an amount put
in our budget for professional services so we can hire counsel. If
we are going to get into this type of work, we're going to need some
legal assistance. I certainly am not qualified in that area and I
don't know what the legislature intends; whether we should hire legal
@ counsel, ask an appropriation for it or expect us to go through the A. G.
office.
Another thing that has been worrying me... I think that they go farther
than the nine poeple that come under our jurisdiction. And I think the
last time I mentioned that if we going to be a truly Ethics Board, I
rn think there are other political subdivisions which should come under
at least our scrutiny.
C ) & t I C t Or 1UL APPENDIX IV
3ltoritsgl K ) r ~ ~ s r i t l t?
1- lrs. Arr~ clid D. L, cwjs
9355 West Peoria Avenue
# Sun City, Arizona 85351
This letter will express the opinior~ of this office
' rcgarding the following questions for which you have already received an oral response from Assistant Attorney General Frank
Fl erning.
1. Does the wording of subparagraph A of
A . 3 . S . § 38- 562, require the State Ethics
Bodrd to actively monitor the financial
disclosure stat. c~ nents requi red urtder A. R. S.
S 38- 542 and A. R. S. 3 8 - 5 4 3 7
A. R. S. S 38- 562. A makes it mandatclry for the Ethics Board
to rec- e- iv- e what are referred to as " conplaints". Otherwise, it m- a- y
init< ate " complaints alld charges against pul) l ic officers". Sub-section
A docs not require that the Board rr~ onitor financial
disclosure statements. Insofar as the 8031- d is authorized to
" in\* estiqate information provided on the fi~ isncial statement of a
public officer. . . ", A. R. S. § 38- 562.8, the Board may in the
exzrcise of its discretion monitor financial 6isclosu~' e statements.
I,
2. Is there any requirerr. snt for the State
Ethics Board to maintain copies of ' the various
financial disclosure statements described in
. Question 1 above?
The financial disclosure statc- rent 1- c- cji~ irebdy law to be
filed pursuant to A. R. S. § 38- 542 must be fjlcd with the office of
the Secretary of State. Although A. R. S. 5 3 6 - 5 6 2 . 8 specifically
authorizes invcsticjation- of these statemcnt!, 1) y t h e Ethics Doarc!
and the Boal- d has the power to request product ion of relevant
' information by subpoena, id,, there is no rccluirernent that the Board itself maintain copies of the financial disclosure slatcrncntr.
3. If the State Ethics Board exceeds its budget
($ 10,000 for the current fiscal year) in attempting
- -- to carry out its duties as a result of a Complaint
filed by the public, does it have any redress with
respect to expenses thereafter incurred in
attempting to carry out its duties?
No money can be paid from the State Trcasury unless the
I . r * ( j i r. 1 at 111- e has rnd3dc a valid appropriation for the purpose and
f u ~ ~ darse avdi lable. ?\ I i zona Constitution, Art. 9, Scc. 5;
Cockri- l--_ l v.. Jordan, 72 ?. riz. 318, 235 P. 2d 1009 ( 1951); Op.
~ t t ~ G- en-. No76E- 6. Consequently, the Ethics R c l i ~ ~ mdu st not
6' xcFedIts- budgef- Timitation of $ 10,000 unless the Legislature
appropriates additional money to it for its use. In short, the
only redress the Rndrd has for expenses incurred in excess of the
Bo~ rd's budyct would L e throuyl~ the legislative i> roccss.
4. Docs the provisjon for a confi? ential
hearing set forth in subparagrat, t\ E. of A. R. S.
S 38- 562 conflict with the requirement for open
meetings as set forth in A. R. S. 5 38- 431.01,
or any other constitutional, statlltory or case
law with respect to due process?
A. R. S. 5 38- 562. E specifically proviclc> s t hat the Eoard
sh. 311 hold c o n f i d e n t i a l hearings only upon the request of the
~ ublic officer nc: ned in the complaint. T5is provision is entirely
cctnsistcnt with A . R. S. $ r 38- 431.03 A. 1 whlch allows closed r~~ cientg s
) frlr the ~ ilr- poseo f considering the discipline of a public officer.
In our view, k ~ o ~ ~ t vy~ ourr, h earinas should only Ibe closed i ~ v c nt he
rcytlest of the p u b l i c officer narned in ttle compl.;; llnt; a nd you
slrould not attcrnpt to voluntarily close your hc;: r i rtqs based upon
A . R . S . 5; 38- 431.03 A . l , althot~ gh an arguinent may tle made that this
' scctlon would c j ~ v ey ou the authority to do so. L: e' ac: corG great ~ eia), tt o tllc Innguacje of A. R. S. 5 38- 562. E that r. necl firally
r i , q ~ ~ i r cy- so ur hrarlnqs to be open to the p u b l l c c~ cepti n the
instance allowed. For a more detailed discussjcln of the open
~!: cc. ting law and its specific requirements, we rcfer you to Op.
Atty. Gen. No. 75- 7 and recommend that you carefully review it.
5. D3es the provision of ~ u h p c r r ~ ~ c l r aDp ho f
A. R. S. 5 38- 561, providing that t he " Uo~ ird shall
adopt rules and regulations g o v e ~ n i r ~ gi ts
proccclitrcs", irnply or conflict with the
provi!; ions of the Administ rat i~ tc. Procctlure A c t
as set forth in A. R. S. 5 41- 101 [ SIC] through
g 41- 1013? Do the provisions of tt~ e
Administrative Procedure Act apply to the Statc
Ethics Board?
Section 41- 1001 defines the term " r u l e " as " each agency
st atcrnent of general applicability that jrnple~ nc. r\ ts, i nterprets or
plc. sc. ribcs law or policy, or describes the organization, procedure
IV- 2
b
or practice requirements of any agency ...." A. R. S. § 41- 1001.7.
It also defines " agency" so as to include the Ethics Board.
A . R . S . § 41- 1001.1. Section 41- 1002 governs the " adoption of an2
rule ....," and establishes the procedures which have to be followed.
D 111t15, t h c rul t - ~ i l * l l , i rig pr ovjsions of the Admi 1 ) i strativc Proccdurc A c t ,
A. R. S. 99 41- 1002 and 41- 1002.01, ,+!> ply to the Etl~ jc:; Board. l'tlere
is no conflict between its provisions, I~ bwcvcr, and those contained
in A. R. S. S 38- 561.
The provisions of the kdministrative Procedures Act that
D apply to contest cd case proceedings are applicable t. o such
PI- oceedings conducted by the Ethics Board.
6. Do the provisions of subr), 3ragraph C of A. R. S.
5 33- 562 allow the State Ethics Board, should
it be without sufficient budget to carry out a
hearing, to send a copy of a cc, mplaint presented
to it to an appropriate law cr~ fol- cementa gency
witllout having co~ tductecla h c a ~ i n 9 as set forth
in t t i e cited statute?
Khen t h e > card bets in its o f f i c i a l capacity reqarding
D an acc~ isation, a ilearing ~ ~ u sbet held. A. R.:;. 5 38- 562. C.
Ci~ nsequen'_ ly, t he answer to the precise q u c A s li on is no. Never-theless,
A. R. S. § 38- 544 r, akes failure to file n findncial
disclosure stayc- ent and/ or intentional fa1 sc f inanci a1 disclosure
cr irrinal of f c n s e . Coiisec: uently, as a pri \ r , ! t c citizen, any
i4ir;:; i, eor f t h e noard I : , J ~ Lr- ing his or her p e ~ l o r ~ akln ow1t. dc. e of a
possihle violaticn to the attention of an cj~) r) r- c~ prialtae w
enforcement agency.
7. If the State Ethics Boarcl sl~ ould fail to take
d i t i t j n on a complaint receivc> cl by it for violation
of the provisions of A. R. S. S S 3 8 - 5 4 2 and 38- 543,
would such failure to act c c ~ ri~ tu~ tte a defense to
an a1 I eged violat- or should a c- l- irnj nal complaint
be brougl-~ ta gainst such all(: rlc'd violator directly
under the provisions of A. R. S. 38- 544 or any
other provision of Arizona St rite law?
The answer to- the qi~ cstiono f whct l~ ero r not the al~ scnce
of an Ethics Board hearing would constitute a valid dcfe~ lse to a
pro.; c. cution for the violation of A. R. S. S 38- 544 is frankly
un'ivailable at this time. A . R . S . g 38- 544, c: llich defines tltc
crirne and thus delineates its elements, docs not exp~+ esslyr equire
a hearing prior to actual criminal prosecution. Similarly, there
is no indication of any legislative intent so as to suggest that the
st atutc irnpliedly makes the hearing a prerccjtii site to criminal
prosecution. Nevertheless, since a hcarincr is afforded in the
first instance, constitutional guarantees nray require that it
always be afforded. e
B ~ h ccr i m i n a l p l o c c s s o f t h e St a t e c - t f n r i z ona pr. oviclcs
a c o ~ ~ s t i t u t i o n a l layd e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a f r l l l and f a i r
d e t e r m i n a t i o n as to t h e q u e s t i o n o f g u i l t . T h u s , it would a p p e a r
t h a t an a d d i t i o n a l h e a r i n g a t which p r o b a b l e c a u s e is d e t e r m i n e d
c a n n o t be s a i d to be e s s e n t i a l to a f a i r t r i a l . Ciowever, t h e
h i s t o r y of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Roard as i t d e v e l o p s , or
B o t h e r f a c t o r s , may 1naLe it po!; sihlc for a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t to
e s t a b l i s h t h a t an E t h i c s Board h e a r i n g i n e f f e c t enlarges t h e
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n to d e f e n d t i i ~ n s e l f a g a i n s t a
c r i m i n a l a c c u s a t i o n . Should t h i s be shown, i t could be c o n t e n d e d
t h n t t h e f a i l u r e to p r o v i d e a h e a r i n g i n a q i \ . e n case c o n t r a r y to
t h e customary p r o c e d u r e would be f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f a i r t o t h e p e r s o n
b wfto d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e h e a r i n g and t h e r e f o l e v i o l a t e d u e p r o c e s s .
S i m i l a r l y , t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e one or a fcw o f f i c i a l s w i t h a
h e a r i n g c o n t r a r y to the g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e p r o c e d u r e can be
c o n t e n d e d to b e b a s e d upon m a l i c e , a n i m o s i t y , p r e j u d i c e o r o t h e r
i r ~ p r o p e r m o t i v a t i o n , so a s to a b r i d g e the r i c 1 f l t to e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n
o f t h e laws. A l t h o u g h e a c h of t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s and o t h e r s l i k e
D t h e n can be c o n t r o v e r t e d and r e s i s t e d by t h e st a t e , and would n o t
l i k c l y p r e v a i l , t h e i r e x i s t e n c e w a r r a n t s c o r l c c r n .
I n c i r c \ ~ l n s t a n c e s such a s t h e s e , \:' i*; tfoin would d i c t a t e t h a t
t h c s c i s s u c s be a v o i d e d , i f p o s s i b l e . I t is r a l - e l y p r u d e n t t o
D clr- 1: cr u~: cb~ drt. t.* cdo n s t i t u t i o n a l t e r r i t o r y t. 2hc. n u r ~ n e c e s s a r.) ~ lint i 1
s i ~ c hi :; sucs arc r c , s o l v e d , i t is o u r a d v i c e t l ~ a tt h e Bciird s h o u l d
u t i I i z e t h e h e a r i n g r;, ecl~ snismp r o v i d e d by F.. k . S . S 3 5 - 5 6 2 . E .
8. Do t h e ? I - o v i s i o n s o f A . R . S . 5 3 6 - 5 6 2 , s e t t i n g
fol t h t h c d i ~ t i c so f t h e S t a t e E t h i c s B o a r d , I- ecli~ irea n a c t i v e
D e f f o r t , pl- oyrdm or i n v e s t i g a t i v e p l a n t o be c c i I - r i e 2 o u t by t h e
6oC: r- d? Is t h e Board i n v i o l a t i o n of i t s s t a t l ~ t o r y d u t y u n d e r
P : . R . S . g 38- 562 i f it ~ a i n t a i n sn o a c t i v e effurt, proqrzm or
i n v e s t i y a t i v e p l a n ?
A . R . S . § 38- 562 r e q u i r e s i n p e r t i r ~ c n t p a r t :
A . The Board s h a l l r e c e i v e ~ I I - ~ mcal y i n i t i a t e
c o m p l a i n t s and c k , a r g e s a g a i n s t p u b l i c o f f i c e r s ...
B. The Board may investigate i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d
on t h e f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t of a p u b l i c o f f i c e r ...
C. The Board s h a l l h o l d a h e a r i n g w i t h i n 90 d a y s
a f t e r a c o n p l a i r l t is f i l e d [ t o d e t e r m i n e its l n e r i t s ] . . .
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e Board is r e q u i r e d to r e c e i v e " C o m p l a i n t s "
a n d i n s o f a r a s it is r e q u i r e d to d e t e r m i n e t t ~ cm e r i t s o f t h o s e
" C o n t p l a i n t . ~ " , t h e Board is r e q u i r e d to c a r r y o u t an a c t i v e program.
Ttr~! se r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , however, a p p e a r to l ~ ct h e e x t e n t o f t h e
IV- 4
M r s . Amelia D. Lewis
, Flat- ch 2 4 , 1976
l'. lgc Five
b poard' s m a n d a t o r y d u t i e s . Although t h e Roald has s u b s t a n t i a1
d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers, there a p p e a r s to be no r e q u i r e m e n t e x p r e s s e d
i n the S t a t u t e w h i c h would irnpose upon t h e Roard t h e o b l i g a t i o n to
be a watchdog o f t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e s t a t e m e n t s
filcld by p u l > l i c o f f i c i a l s .
D I n s h o r t , it would appear t h a t t h e E t h i c s Board has been
g i v e n t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to c o n s i d e r t h e v a l i d i t y and make f i n s i n g s
r e g a r d i n g t h e merits o f " C o m p l a i n t s " which a r e b r o u g h t to its
a t t e n t i o n , and to make s u c h o t h e r i n v e s t i q a t i i ) n s and i n q ~ i i r i c si n t o
t h e d i s c l o s u r e s w h i c h , i n its d i s c r e t i o n , arc w a r r a n t e d w i t h i n t h e
l i m i t a t i o n o f its r e s o u r c e s .
Your letter of Novenber 1 8 , 1975 a l s o r e q u e s t s t h i s
o f f i c e to r e n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e to the Board. A t t h e
o u t s e t w e would p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e d u t y t o i r i v e s t i g d t e is p l a c e d
s c i u a r c l y upon the B o a r d a n d d o e s n o t obliqcltc t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l
to p r o v i d e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Liclard. talany agencies
of t h e S t d t e r e q u e s t t h a t we a f f o r d them i n v c . s t i g a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e
iind w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f o u r r e s o u r c e s w e ( 30 SO. Our i n v c Y t i c 2 a t i v e
s t a f f is c o i j s ~ q u ~ n t luys u a l l y o v e r b u r d e n e d . T h u s , any investigative
zssistdnce this office w i l l be able t o renc? r. r w i l l be e ~ t r e r ~ e l y
limlted.
S i n c e r e l y ,
C h i e f Courlc. c, l c
C i v i l D i v i s i o n
PJI: F'GF : j pr
IV- 5
APPENDIX V
ETHICS BOARD
I645 R'. Jcffrrson
l'l~ ocnir. .4Z 85007
( 601) 271- 3095
January 14. 19737
Honorable Raul Castro
Governor of the State of Arizona
Kinth Floor, West Ning
S ~ a t eC api to1 Building
B Phoenix, AZ 85007
D ~ a r Governor Castro:
The State Ethics Board has been in existence for scj: ne eighteen ( 18)
i:. d! lths and i s in a position t o carry on i t s duties as set forth in
L. R. S. 533- 562. We understand that our existence i s primarily the
r- c- sill t of a ldck of public co~~ fidencien both govet ~ t ~ i i ~ fanntd poli-ticians.
I n other of the United S t a t e s , attciirpts to t- egulate con-f
l i c t of i n t ? r e s t and financial disclosure began i n the middle 1S00' s;
r i u s , Arizona i s r~ cw to this area of conczr- n.
; he 5ta: e Ethics E ~ ~ a rodf Ar- izsna, as zpposed to the statutol- y provi-s
i c n s. o. f ; 3ny ether s t o t e s , rc- qiii~ e s tl-, at the B ~ ~ i l - isi i t cnly 2s a c , ~ c s- i j ~ ~ d i c i ablo dy :., btt7n a cospl a i n t i s rxde. Tht ~ m - ~ p l a i n*- ta y
only CG! i< E. Tn i t s e l f w i t h ihe firr2ncial disclosur- e [ JI- ovisicfis of our
st a t e law, hhich ? revisions excldde disclosures wi th resi; ect Lo cash
ciIr- r.~! id? rv sl ues of i n s ~ ~ - a n c < ; - s ~ ~ ~ ofc ecsi; : pen: n t i on outside p ~ bilc
~ ~ r v i ciroeri l : he pub1 ic ~ f f i c e r ' sb tisiness or profession, real es taie
; ised pr- ii:, arily fot- p~ rsonal I- ecrc- ation, debts res( 11 t i n g fr- o: n c; t dir, ary
ci~ nd.~ coft tjss i [ less or pr- ofcssion, personal res ili;-. l-~ iec, onsbr. er debts
cr debts secured by l i f e insurance or debts to rc. l, itives, dnd other
f ir3ancial facts.
in dtidi tion, and un1 ike some other s t a t e s , the q u ~ s t i o n of c o n f l i c t
~ f interest disclosures, found in A. R. S. 538- 501 Il~ t.~ ug3h2 - 52] , i s
excluded from the jurisdiction of the State Ethics Eoard.
The State Ethics Board i s perniiited, but not required, to recon~ end
legislation reldting to e t h i c s , c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t and financial
disclosure and advisory opinions concerning these matters. Curiously,
tne State s t a t u t e s dre mandatory i n requiring that t h i s Board " shall"
provide a continuing program of education and information concerning
t t t ~ i c s , conflicts o f i n t e r e s t and financial disclosure.
Governor Castro January 1 4 , 1976
We recognize t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e , i n c r e a t i n g our Board, was wary
of c r e a t i n g a " monster" i n the sense o f having a Board w i t h s u f f i -
c i e n t power t o misuse it, i n what might commonly be termed " w i t c h
hunts". We s i n c e r e l y agree t h a t no such a c t i v i t i e s have any place i n
any branch o f government. We have no wish t o i n i t i a t e , o f our own
motion, any hearings f o r the same reason t h a t judges do not hander
the stt- cets and attempt to drum up business i n c i v i l o r c r i n ~ i n a l l i t i -
gation.
On the other hand, it has occurred t o our c o l l e c t i v e mind t h a t the
c i t i z e n s o f t h i s State may mistakenly take comfort i n an assumption
t h d t the existence o f a S t a t e E t h i c s Board i m p l i e s a general and con-t
i n u i n g review o f the f i n a n c i a l d i s c l o s u r e stat~ rn(: nts r e q u i r e d by our
State Code and c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t d i s c l o s u r e s . Those state7ents
should amount t o s o ~ e t h i n grn ore than the s t u f f i r l g of a d d i t i o n a l f i l e
cabinets w i t h i! octdt8, ents which, once f i l e d , w i l l tie ignored. This
possible f a l s e kense o f s e c u r i t y may o r may not t i t ? something t h a t
should be o f coni? t- n; and, may or may not be a ptoper subject o f sore
l e g ~ s l a t i v er - ~ C U - Ic n d a t ~ o n s .
Part o f our c o r ~ s i d ~ l - a t i owno uld c e r t a i n l y be the at t i t u d e of the
Govcrnor o f t h i s State b i t h respect t o these ger, cr- dl dreas of c3ncern,
i f i n f a c t tbey ar e PI- sperly t o be considered ", 11-~- aso f concern". i.:?,
tti? 1r f c r e , cot- dial l y i n v i t e , dnd ~ ~ o u gl den uinely \ c l u e , any t b ~ , g k l t s
o r o b s e t - v a t i o n s ycb n i g h t see f i t to o f f e r w i t h r t s p e c t t o thrse
~ r ~ a t t c r sa, l ~ a y sk i t h the best i n t e r e s t s o f our c i t i z e n s and odr State
as tne u l ? i ~ ~ oot bej e c t i v e .
R e s p e c t f u l l y yours,
Dr. Richard W. Cain
Cnairiqan, Etirics Bcrard
RWC: sa
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE n o u s E
PHOENIXAR. IZONA8 5007
IN R C P L I
R E F E R 10
January 27, 1977
D r . Richard W. Cain
Chairman, E t h i c s Board
1645 West J e f f e r s o n
Phoenix, Arizcna 85007
Dear D r . C s i n :
Governor C ~ s t r oh as asked m e t o r e s p o n d t o your r e c e n t
l e t t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e d u t i e s of t h e S t a t e i.: t. hics Board.
I t is a p p a r e n t a f t e r r e v i e w i n g y o u r lettc4r t h a t t h e r e
a r e s e l r e r a l r r p o r t a n t i s s u e s to be r e s o l 1 7 c d . Some o f
t h e s e aay p s s r b l y r e q u i r e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . Conse-q
u e n t l y , we are f o r w a r d i n g a copy o f y o u r l e t t e r to
S e n 3 t o r Jop. 2~ 3 s b o r n f o r h i s s t u d y . I t LS s u g g e s t e d
t h a t you c o n t a c t h l s o f f l c e i f you have dny f u r t h e r
q u e s t i o n s on t h i s l a t t e r .
Thank you for c o n t a c t i n g t h i s o f f i c e . P l e a s e b e
a s s u r e d t k 1 3 t t h e Governor s h a r e s y o u r c o n c e r n a b o u t
t h e scope of t h e B o a r d ' s
Ro ert' Hath( 1r: a
S p e c i a l ~ s s i s t a n t
cc: S e n a t o r J o n e s Osborn
A* 8
- . - . / - e'= i'
EVERETT J. JONES ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX VI
liesley Rolin, Governor
State o t Arizona
State Capitol Bui lding
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Honorable Iiesley Bolin: ,
. I have served on the State Ethics Board since i t s fonn:~ tion. I have also
served in other capacities in the past few years when I uas asked to give
of my tine on behalf of the State of Arizona and citizens. I believe
strongly that every citizen owes more to their c o m i t y , their s t a t e ,
and their country than to sinrply live and work in the environment pro-vided.
I have been pleased to have been of service and I do not regret
the loss of any time or the minor sacrifices that I have made i n order
to contribute.
I ~ o u l d , hokever, like to subqi- t m x u a t j on from the St- ate Ethics
Corrrmittee. I t i s my oplruon that the legislatiorl provided to inplement
t h i s Cormittee i s insufficient to responsibly dischalge i t s intended
fcrnctioni. The scope of authority of tlle Coimittee i s too narrow to be
of general use to the citizens of Arizona and the ob.; crvance of the
formality of occasional meetings of those appointed to the Board serves
no useful function. The statute provides that we can 1113kree comnendations
regdrd~ ng nee& d legis lation, but from a practical standpoint, the
legisliltule nut feel the need for a stronger statute in connection with
conflict of interest ~ ind other related ethical quebtions that might rea-sonably
be addressed by our body and I do ilot believe ~ l l t~ het l egislature
feels there's a need for a strong Committee nor is there willingness to
expand our jurisdiction to cover other elected officers a t various levels
of State Government or to extend our authority to the two houses of
legislati~ i- ei t s e l f .
I apologize for not having offered my resignation Inore quickly, but I am
sure thdt y, ou have other appointrrents to f i l l and w i 1 l be continuing to
~ a k eap poir~ trwntsi n the future. I'm appreciative ot the confidence
t! ut has been s h m in me by these appoinments and 1 rlo not intend to
lnrply that I am unwilling to give of myself for public senrice, but I
tiish to f e e l t h a t my efforts are productive and needed.
Respectfully,
c z - a
/-- ~~& i'
f v e r e t t J. / GJ&
REPAESENTING
SAkECO INSUHANCE COMPANIES