What are Denny Hoskins and Delbert Scott working so hard to hide?

Consistent with the GOP leadership's disdain for anything resembling reasonable ethic reform, Rep. Denny Hoskins (R-Warrensburg) and Sen. Delbert Scott (R-Lowry City) are expected to continue their work this week to actually reduce basic disclosure requirements for 61 municipalities across the state.

Current law requires elected officials, candidates for elective office and certain other officials in political subdivisions with operating budgets of over $1 million to file financial interest statements.  However, if Scott and Hoskins are successful passing their legislation (SB66), the budget floor will be increased to $2 million, effectively exempting 61 new towns from this basic open government requirement.

Here's a key portion of Hoskins' attempt to explain why the public deserves less transparency last week:

(A transcript of this debate between Hoskins and Rep. John Burnett is up at Show Me Progress.)

Before he was rescued from himself by Floor Leader Steve Tilley, Hoskins failed to present any compelling arguments for relaxing the disclosure requirements.  His best excuse was that some people in some towns sometimes don't fill out financial interest statements like they should -- but a refusal to comply with existing transparency rules is hardly a good reason to have less transparency.

Hoskins also tried to say that $1 million in 1991 dollars is roughly equivalent to $2 million in 2009 dollars, but this doesn't make any sense at all. The CPI has increased 57% since 1991, not 100% (a professional CPA like Hoskins wouldn't know things like that), and it's hard to see why inflation has anything to do with transparency and openness in local government whatsoever.

The only logical reason for the legislation, then,  is that somebody has something to hide. The current requirements are not burdensome, and the public certainly isn't clamoring for a more secretive system of local government.

The local connection for Hoskins is Knob Noster, which would become exempt if the Hoskins/Scott bill were to pass. Except that the mayor of Knob Noster thinks that the proposal is bad news 

IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOWS?
Hoskins argues to decrease what city politicians disclose

...Knob Noster Mayor Stan Hall said he opposes the measure.

"I do not find these forms particularly burdensome and I do not mind filling them out," Hall, who owns the Knob Noster Item newspaper, said Tuesday. "I am a newspaper person and I think this type of disclosure is valuable."

Confronted by the hometown Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, Hoskins now says he's really just trying to encourage more people to run for local office: 

Asked whether the disclosure better serves the public, Hoskins said, "Having that personal financial disclosure is a disincentive to run for these volunteer positions and lots of times...it's hard to find people to run to begin with and since they are unpaid positions I don't feel they should have disclose all their personal financial information."

[But, um....]

Hoskins said he does not know anyone who has not run for office as a result of having to fill out the form.

Not exactly a convincing argument, is it? 

In addition to Knob Noster, Hoskins listed a number of other municipalities that he would like to exempt from the disclosure requirements (this is a partial list):

It's not at all clear yet what interest Hoskins and Scott have in reducing transparency in smaller towns, but it's hard to see how this move from Hoskins and Scott has anything to do with good government and the public's interest.