The Coral Gables commission decided not to jump on the lawsuit that 12 cities have joined to challenge a new law that requires all municipal electeds to submit a Form 6 financial disclosure instead of a Form 1 — with much more information about income and sources of income than before.
Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, the new law requires more transparency from city and town electeds.
On Form 1 electeds only have to list sources of income, not exact amounts paid. They must report their net worth, bank account balances, and assets and liabilities of more than $1,000. They must also disclose any out-of-state property they own. Form 1 only required Florida property to be reported.
Some electeds and a lawyer at Weiss Serota — who is filing the class action motion — say Form 6 goes too far and violates the electeds’ right to privacy. But it is the same disclosure form that county commissioners and school board members have been required to submit for years.
Read related: Coral Gables Mayor Vince Lago has more city business than we thought
Interestingly, the only person who didn’t say a word about it at last week’s commission meeting was Mayor Vince Lago, whose own business dealings have come into scrutiny recently after it was learned that he was one of the realtors who sold Rishi Kapoor‘s Location Ventures the 1550 Ponce de Leon Building for redevelopment. Kapoor is the developer who paid Miami Mayor Francis Suarez $10,000 a month for “consulting” while he sought permits and approvals from the city for his projects.
Lago also shared a construction business, Hammer Lake Development, with perennial commission candidate Tony Newell for a short while. He has since taken his name off the coporate documents.
Every other commissioner said they were not in support of the lawsuit.
“I personally don’t think that we should be joining a lawsuit to sue the state,” said Ariel Fernandez. “If these other municipalities have an interest in suing that’s fine.
“I think people are entitled to know where our income is coming from.”
Commissioner Kirk Menendez said he had done a lot of research on the new requirements.
“I can see why there are concerns. The minutia that is sought goes beyond feels that most people are looking for and it puts families at risk,” Menendez said. “I’m looking forward to seeing what the court rules, but I think right now it’s probably not the right message to send our community.
“Just because of the optics.”
Read related: Coral Gables commissioner, manager spar at City Commission meeting
Commissioner Melissa Castro said there were already 12 cities participating and the law firm Weiss Serota — who City Attorney Christina Suarez said approached the city about the class action case — already surpassed their minimum number of cities sought (10) to file the challenge. There were actually 14 as of this post, including Bal Harbour, Cooper City, Coral Springs, Delray Beach, Golden Beach, Indian Creek, Lighthouse Point, Miami Springs and North Bay Village.
Besides, Castro said, the new requirements come at a very good time.
“Given the circumstances that we are in in South Florida, I think it is necessary,” she said. “I know it’s uncomfortable to present all this personal financial information. But given the circumstances that we are in right now, it might be necessary. So no.
Read related: Fritz & Franz Bierhaus wins three-week reprieve from Coral Gables commission
Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson had only four words: “I’m not in favor.”
But Lago, who goes on and on about anything, didn’t say a peep. It’s very uncharacteristic of him.
Some political observers expect him to resign before the deadline to submit the forms in June, like more than 100 electeds across the state have already done.
We should be so lucky.
Coral Gables Mayor Vince Lago stays mum on Form 6 lawsuit, requirements added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
Alberto Santos, I appreciate your point of view, but I would argue that full financial transparency for elected officials is, in fact, essential for good government.
It promotes accountability:
Financial transparency allows the public to understand potential conflicts of interest. If an official makes decisions that financially benefit their own investments or businesses, citizens can hold them accountable and demand action. This discourages corruption and builds trust in government.
It prevents influence peddling:
Knowing an official’s financial situation makes it easier to identify if they might be susceptible to bribes or undue influence from special interests. Transparency acts as a deterrent to such behavior and reinforces ethical governance.
It informs public confidence:
When residents are in the dark about the financial dealings of their elected officials, it breeds suspicion and mistrust. Transparency allows people to see that their leaders are acting in their best interests, not their own, enhancing public confidence in government institutions. One of Mayor Lago’s larget issue.
It attracts qualified candidates:
While some talented individuals might be dissuaded by increased scrutiny, full transparency can also attract competent, ethical candidates who value public service and understand the importance of accountability. These individuals are likely to be more focused on serving the public good than enriching themselves.
It identifies financial risks:
Financial disclosures can reveal unexpected challenges or vulnerabilities. For example, if an official has significant debt or business dealings in politically relevant sectors, it raises concerns about potential conflicts or financial instability that could impact their public duties. Openness allows for proactive management of such risks.
Private Sector Success as Indicator – While experience in the private sector can be valuable, it’s not the only indicator of good governance. Public service requires different skills and motivations. Focusing solely on financial wealth excludes many qualified individuals who may not have pursued high-paying careers but possess integrity, knowledge, and dedication to public service.
Full financial transparency is not a guarantee of good government. It is a critical tool for promoting accountability, preventing corruption, and building public trust. By ensuring open and accessible information about the financial situations of our elected officials, we empower residents to make informed decisions, hold their representatives accountable, and ultimately achieve better government.
This time i agree with Kirk: it is because of the ‘optics’. It looks good to be in favor of elected official total financial transparency, and it looks bad to be against it.
The question is: does full financial transparency makes good government ?
Funny enough, I believe that it does not.
We want to have the best elected officials ( I m sure that everybody would agree ). A good indicator of an effective elected official is that they had a successful track record in the private sector ( Would anybody be comfortable with a government official who failed in the private sector ? ) Successful people in the private sector normally are rewarded with good financial wealth ( as it happens in most cases in a non-socialist economy ). Financial wealth attracts bad actors ( as someone said: ‘the best way to get what you want is to steal it from who has it’). In order to protect themselves and their families, highly qualified candidates for public office would not run for office, if they would be required to a full and extensive disclosure.
Instead, we would get incompetent elected officials, who had a failed track record in the private sector. And this is bad government.
[…] January 29, 2024 0 2 min read […]