Oakland County commissioners ask state to require financial-disclosure rules after public outcry

The Oakland County Board of Commissioners voted 15–2 to adopt a resolution asking the Michigan Legislature to authorize and require financial-disclosure rules for county-elected officials, a move the board framed as a path to stronger, enforceable transparency.

Public-comment speakers urged mandatory, enforceable disclosure rather than voluntary forms. Charles Simcchino, a former Royal Oak city commissioner and prosecutor, told the board, “We urgently need an enforceable mandatory financial-disclosure policy for public officials” and said recent media reporting had exposed what he called “one of the largest political corruption scandals in county history.” Other residents asked the board to require disclosure of outside earnings above $1,000, to report ownership interests such as LLCs, and to create an independent ombudsman to enforce ethics rules.

Supporters of the resolution described it as a practical next step. Commissioner Spitz, who moved the measure, said members had decided to ‘set aside’ a voluntary program and instead seek state authority to create enforceable requirements. The motion passed after limited debate.

Opponents said the resolution falls short of immediate local action. Commissioner Nelson argued the resolution “shifts responsibility to the state” and does not itself require any county official to report financial information; she told colleagues the board already has the ability to adopt meaningful mandatory disclosure but is choosing not to act locally. That criticism echoed several public speakers who said asking Lansing to act is insufficient.

The resolution asks the Michigan Legislature to provide a statutory framework enabling counties to adopt binding disclosure rules; it does not itself change county reporting obligations. With the vote completed, the board directed the item to the lobbyists and invited the executive and staff to continue work with the board and communities on next steps.

The action closes one chapter in a broader, heated public debate about county ethics. Residents who urged the board to act emphasized enforcement mechanisms and an independent ombudsman; proponents of state action said consistent statewide rules could avoid legal uncertainty. The resolution’s adoption does not create immediate, locally enforceable disclosure obligations — any binding policy would require either new state law or further adoption by the county under the framework requested.