The Center for Public Integrity has conducted grading surveys of state disclosures periodically since 1999. CPI boasts that its researchers developed a “comprehensive state-by-state analysis” which ranks the states by “examining filing requirements, public accessibility, and enforcement procedures.
“Researchers obtain answers to the survey questions by examining state statutes and disclosure forms, and by interviewing state ethics officers.”
In 1999, Georgia ranked 33rd and received an F. In 2006, Georgia ranked sixth and in 2009 Georgia ranked seventh with a B. Georgia was able to better its position by passing laws based on CPI’s survey results and comments. Fast forward to the present. Georgia has apparently fallen from seventh to 50th.
How is this possible? Did Georgia pass laws that removed reporting requirements or weakened enforcement procedures? No. In 2010 and 2011, Georgia passed legislation to require more disclosure and higher penalties. What changed was how CPI conducted the survey or who it used or did not use to answer the questions.
As previously identified in 1999, 2006 and 2009, CPI used ethics officers and examined statutes and disclosure forms to grade each state. How do I know? First, CPI states it on its website. Secondly, I was the ethics officer in Georgia for 2006 and 2009. I also assisted the agency in Missouri in 1999 by answering the survey and providing the statutes and forms to CPI for analysis.
This raises the question: If CPI did not use nonpartisan ethics officers charged with enforcing the laws, then how did they receive the data to analyze? Unfortunately, here is where the research methodology of CPI receives a failing grade. CPI advertised on journalist websites and hired reporters to answer the questions. Sadly, the reporters did not use current statutes, regulations, rules, advisory opinions or forms to answer most of the questions. Obviously, if the answers were not based on current statutes and rules, then the grade is not accurate. This is especially true since Georgia has increased accountability, reporting requirements and penalties in the past several years.
In reality, not only does the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission have authority and oversight of elected officials, the agency also has sweeping ability to demand compliance and cooperation, including broad subpoena power. As the former head of the commission, I can attest this authority was used multiple times.
The past CPI survey results have been utilized as a great resource to assist legislatures on which areas of the laws need to be strengthened. The current CPI results are worthless since these results were not answered by ethics officers and based on current forms, advisory opinions, laws and regulations.
The Center for Public Integrity was irresponsible for accepting outdated sources and not requiring each and every question to be based on current law and regulations. CPI’s failed oversight is shameful and indefensible.
Rick Thompson is founder of R. Thompson & Associates, an ethics and governmental compliance consulting firm.
About the Author
