Council advances ordinance to require statements of economic interest after hours of debate over disclosure and privacy

The Watertown Common Council on April 21 advanced ordinance 2614—a proposed amendment to sections 114-3 and 114-7 governing a statement of economic interest—after extended debate about disclosure scope, privacy protections and administrative practice.

Alderperson Davis pressed the council on whether the form’s letter C, which asks candidates to "list the names of all employers or clients who have paid in excess of $5,000 in the last year," is required by state law and whether it could conflict with client confidentiality for some professions. "This is concerning," Davis said, noting that common-council members are not state-required filers and expressing concern that making such disclosures public could expose private business relationships.

Council members and staff discussed redaction practices under state public-records law (chapter 19), with staff noting that personal contact information and minor-child information would be redacted but that business relationships and property ownership are generally public. Mr. Blanky said recent experiences with doxxing made him wary of adding optional disclosure fields to an item that will become a one-stop public record, noting it could make council members and their associates easier targets.

Staff and council also said the city’s auditors (Baker Tilly) have requested confirmation that the city maintains economic-interest forms as part of annual financial-control checks. There was discussion about whether letter C’s $5,000 threshold corresponds to other dollar amounts in the ethics code (a $3,000 disclosure rule was cited) and whether the city should retain, modify or remove that line. Council indicated it would seek to revise the form (letter C) and clarify redaction practice before second reading.

Members also debated language in the ordinance (letter G) that would authorize the mayor to execute grant applications that do not require matching city funds. Several alderpersons urged clearer language tying that authority to existing policy (which requires finance-committee review for grants requiring matching funds) and asked for an explicit reporting step to council. Council amended the provision to specify the mayor may only submit applications that "do not require matching city funds."

A motion to remove a sentence limiting public-commenters to speaking once per meeting failed (roll call vote). On ordinance 2614 the council took a first reading motion (moved by Alder Lampy, seconded by Blanky) and approved the ordinance on first reading by roll call. The first-reading vote was recorded by roll-call and carried; council directed staff to provide a revised form and to bring clarifying language back for the second reading.

What’s next: ordinance 2614 passed first reading; staff will revise the statement-of-economic-interest form (particularly letter C) and clarify redaction guidance and reporting procedures before the ordinance returns for a second reading and final vote.