A new study by the Center for Public Integrity ranks Utah among the four worst states in the nation for its failure to require the three members of the Public Service Commission to make available for public perusal any personal financial information that might relate to their jobs.
"I'm sure Utah's commissioners are honorable people. And I'm sure they are not voting to enrich themselves," said John Dunbar, the author of the study. "But that isn't the point. The point is that it is best if that information is available so that the public can make its own judgment call."
Utah isn't alone in its lack of financial disclosure requirements.
Along with Utah three other states - Wyoming, New Mexico and Delaware - failed to score a single point in the study that was based on a 43-question survey and awarded up to 100 points for requiring state utility regulators to identify their outside, if any, employers, what they earn from what investments, what business clients they might have and what outside directorships they hold. Points also were awarded if a state required commissioners' spouses to disclose similar information.
Washington state scored the highest on the survey. It earned 92.5 points. Still, 26 states flunked the Center's financial disclosure test by receiving scores lower than 60. Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and Vermont each earned one point.
Dunbar noted that all 50 states have legislation that either limits or bans commissioners from earning income from the companies they regulate. But he argues that financial disclosure is an ethical safeguard that can help protect the public even more.
"An official who votes in favor of an issue that benefits a client can only be held accountable if their relationship already has been disclosed," he said.
Utah PSC chairman Ric Campbell said state law prohibits commissioners from receiving any income from outside employment, accepting gifts or travel expenses from utilities or holding shares of the companies they regulate.
"We're abiding by every Utah law right now," he said, indicating if any additional disclosures were required that they would be met.
"If the law is changed and I need to sign a paper indicating that I have no conflicts of interest, I wouldn't have any problem doing that."
Utah consumer activist Jeff Fox, a former state legislator and utility analyst for the Crossroads Urban Center, said additional disclosure always is a good idea. "It would be good if only to keep those who might want to try to benefit from getting into those positions," he said.
