Increasing Commissioner Disclosure and Transparency
Recently, Representative Donna Steele introduced House Bill 5091, and the Legislature held its first hearing on the proposal this past December 9. The bill is a straightforward, common-sense step toward better government in Michigan. It would require county commissioners and executives in the state’s 16 largest counties to file annual financial disclosure reports—the same requirement Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved for state legislators and statewide officials in 2022. In counties like Wayne, Ottawa, Oakland, Macomb, and Kent, boards manage billion-dollar budgets, make decisions that shape development, and award major public contracts. These are positions where undisclosed conflicts of interest can have real impacts on communities.
When voters approved Proposal 1 in 2022, they made it clear that transparency is a basic expectation for anyone exercising public power. If state lawmakers must disclose their financial interests so the public can identify potential conflicts, that same principle should apply to county commissioners who wield comparable authority in Michigan’s most populous regions.
County officials make decisions on land use, economic development, procurement, public health, and infrastructure—areas where personal financial interests can easily overlap with public responsibilities. Disclosure doesn’t prevent someone from serving or from having outside business interests; it simply ensures the public can see where those interests are.
HB 5091 is intentionally targeted. It applies only to counties with more than 150,000 residents, recognizing that commissioner roles in rural counties are often part-time and volunteer-driven. The 16 affected counties represent Michigan’s major population centers, where county government is more professionalized and where the financial stakes are higher.
The bill builds on the framework established by Proposal 1, requiring disclosure of income sources, liabilities, reportable gifts, and potential conflicts. By directing the Secretary of State to create a standardized electronic reporting system, it minimizes administrative burden while ensuring consistency and public accessibility.
Some worry that disclosure requirements could deter qualified people from running for office. That concern is understandable, but it no longer reflects modern expectations. Public officials who manage substantial public resources should be transparent about their private financial interests. This is not a novel requirement: federal officials and state officials in all 50 states already comply with similar rules, and Michigan was one of the last states to adopt them for its own Legislature.
Government works best when citizens can trust it—and trust requires transparency. HB 5091 extends the reforms Michigan voters already endorsed to the level of government where decisions most directly affect neighborhoods, businesses, and everyday life.
This is responsible, good-government legislation. It protects officials by reducing the appearance of impropriety and gives citizens the information they need to hold their local representatives accountable.
Michigan took an important step with Proposal 1. HB 5091 continues that work by ensuring transparency doesn’t stop in Lansing—it reaches the county boardrooms where so many critical decisions are made.
