The Power of Citizen Journalism
 
News» Top News» Latest News» Post News ($) Blogs» Top Blogs» Latest Blogs» Post Blog» Images» Top Images» Latest Images» Upload Images» TV» Groups» View Groups» Create a Group» Live Events» Alerts» Create an Alert» Manage Alerts» How do I ...» Get paid to report news» Post blogs» Upload images» Embed video» Join/create groups» Vote on news & images» Comment & debate»
 

article imageGlobal Warming Agency Head to Put Stock in Oil and Coal in Blind Trust

Posted Aug 20, 2007 by  Eric S. Wyatt in Environment | 3 comments | 488 views
Join our team to voice opinions, share images, get paid to report news and more!
Email Print Share
Subscribe to author

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional
Mary Nichols is set to lead California's Air Resources Board, a state-run effort to control Global Warming. Financial disclosures indicate that she owns stock in several large oil and energy companies; the companies the Board's decisions will impact.
Rather than sell the stocks, a San Fransisco Gate article reports that Nichols is planning to hold the stocks in a blind trust while she chairs the Air Resources Board. Her husband is an attorney who represents Exxon, and she has stated that the decision to retain the shares is a "joint decision" about "family money".

Nichols was appointed to the board by Gov. Schwarzenegger (R) and had held previous government appointments under then-Governor Davis (D). She is respected in the environmental community as a lawyer who specialized in environmental concerns, and from her stint on the Air Board under former Governor Jerry Brown (D). Some in the environmental community questioned the "greenness" of her investment portfolio.

Others questioned the legitimacy of utilizing a blind trust instead of divesting oneself of the stock altogether, especially given the nature of the Air Board's efforts to penalize and curtail the energy industry. It seems reasonable to ask how someone invested in a company could take any action that would harm that company's stock value?

The stocks were disclosed as part of a conflict of interest statement made by Nichols. All top-level government officials are required to disclose any holdings or relationships which might be directly impacted by decisions the official might have to make. The purpose of such conflict statements is to make public any circumstances that may affect government decision making.

The question is, will California citizens balk at the head of their environmental program owning stock in the companies the environmental groups blame for increased warming? They will have the chance to speak through their elected leaders as the California Senate votes to approve the appointment of Nichols to the post. The Senate has a year to take such a vote.
article:219326:11::0
1 subscriber
Subscribe to this thread
  • avatar Posted Aug 21, 2007 by  Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
    #1
    I know that I would probably not be happy to have to get rid of my stocks just because of my husbands job, however, if the board is actually making decisions about those companies, one would think that it is somewhat of a conflict of interest because right now she knows what is in the blind trust and, the investments are somewhat suspect for a person in this position. Something of a conundrum.
  • avatar Posted Aug 21, 2007 by  Eric S. Wyatt
    #2
    First, it isn't her husband's job that is making her put the stocks in a blind trust, it is her job. The husband's job simply adds another layer of complexity to the situation..."Honey, I pushed through a reform that may cost you your job today. How was the office?"

    :-)

    Second, Nichols is admitting a conflict of interest, as she should. She's not doing anything wrong, but the question becomes: is it enough? Common sense says to most of us that you only hold on to a stock if you think it will still be valuable later, so putting it in a blind trust means that you don't have direct control over it, but won't it still influence you? I don't know.

    This is just one of those oddities of American public life.
  • avatar Posted Aug 21, 2007 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #3
    It is obvious it is conflict of interest, she should either put the stocks elsewhere or resign the job and let others do it.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?