New Jersey Assembly Bill A4889

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/21/22
• Refer: 11/21/22
• Report Pass: 12/12/22
• Engrossed: 12/15/22
• Refer: 12/15/22
• Report Pass: 3/2/23
• Engrossed: 3/30/23
• Enrolled: 3/30/23
• Vetoed: 5/18/23

Caption

Removes requirement that certain government officers disclose the address of their home or secondary residence, or that of their immediate family on financial disclosure statements.

Impact

The anticipated impact of A4889 on state laws includes the alteration of financial disclosure processes by lessening the amount of personal information required from government officers. It signifies an effort to balance transparency in public service with individual privacy rights. As public financial disclosures are often scrutinized as a form of accountability, the adjustment could have ramifications on how public trust is managed in local governance. The removal of address disclosures may be seen as a protection for those in public office against potential harassment or privacy invasions.

Summary

Assembly Bill A4889 aims to modify financial disclosure requirements for local government officers in New Jersey by removing the obligation to disclose the addresses of their home or secondary residences, as well as those of their immediate family, on financial disclosure statements. The bill seeks to amend existing legislation from P.L.1991, c.29 to include a more privacy-focused approach to financial transparency while still requiring the disclosure of relevant financial interests and income sources. This act embodies a shift towards ensuring personal privacy for public officials.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding A4889 appears to be varied. Proponents of the bill advocate for the privacy of public officials, arguing that the requirement to disclose personal addresses unnecessarily exposes them to risks. They highlight the importance of protecting the privacy of their immediate families as a matter of personal safety and dignity. Conversely, critics express concerns that reducing disclosure requirements might lead to a lack of transparency, diminishing public trust in local officials. The debate reflects the ongoing dialogue about the competing interests of transparency and personal privacy in governance.

Contention

Notable points of contention arise from the implications of the bill on existing transparency standards. While the bill aims to enhance personal safety for government officers, advocates for transparency argue that any reduction in disclosed information could lead to greater public distrust. Some opponents may raise issues about the need for accountability in public office, emphasizing that transparency should not be compromised, even in the name of privacy. The discussions surrounding A4889 illustrate the complexities inherent in crafting legislation that seeks to balance these often conflicting interests.