Editoral: Bad form

Publication: Frederick News Post

July 22, 2008

One of the things the Nixon-era Watergate Scandal bequeathed us — specifically, to our public officials — was the Ethics in Government Act.

In addition to articulating restrictions on the lobbying activities of former government employees, the now 30-year-old federal law established annual financial disclosure requirements for members of the upper levels of all three government branches.

Given that personal financial disclosure has been part of the political/government scene for some three decades now, it's fair to assume that individuals such as the president, vice president, members of Congress and candidates and federal judges know that completing and remitting the disclosure forms come with the territory.

If you stop by the Congresspedia website, you can take a gander at a portion of the document. As displayed, it is reminiscent of, well ... our tax forms.

According to the website, categories include: earned income; payments made to charity in lieu of honoraria; assets and 'unearned income'; transactions; liabilities; gifts; and travel payments and reimbursements. All of which boil down to revealing how much money you earned and listing where it came from. You need also to give the same information for your spouse and dependent children.

It all seems pretty straightforward.

But first impressions can be deceiving.

Ask Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-6th District.

Regardless of being in the loop since 1993, he's been getting this disclosure thing wrong since 2004.

A July 20 News-Post story explained that between then and the 2007 reporting period Bartlett "has underreported or failed to report roughly $1 million in property sales ... "

In an interview with staff reporter Justin Palk the congressman averred that his omissions indicated "nothing sinister" and assured that he was "not trying to hide anything."

We believe him.

However, the bittersweet reality of Bartlett's explanations surrounding the "combination of inattentiveness and confusion between multiple properties," that he said predicated his behavior still stands. It is further compounded by several for-interest loans he made that never showed up on the reporting forms. At all.

The overriding theme of the interview and its import was driven home in Bartlett's explanation of how the 2004 sale price of an Ijamsville property was reported on his financial disclosures at a price more than $300,000 less than was recorded in state property records. According to Bartlett that error resulted from staff failing to read correctly his handwritten notes. He then signed the completed form without reading it.

Bartlett admitted that was something he should not have done.

We believe that too.

Adamantly.