a controversial bill that was slated for Signature is now stalled after Governor Murphy on Tuesday conditionally vetoed legislation that would no longer require elected officials to disclose their addresses on financial disclosure statements not because he doesn't support it but because of a technicality critics say this bill is just the latest example of eroding transparency within government senior political correspondent David Cruz reports most open government groups Republicans and probably some members of the press give Governor Phil Murphy a mostly poor grade for overall transparency during his first term it was an Administration tendency if not an outright policy justified by the special circumstances of the pandemic but in his second term critics are howling that the governor and his Democratic majorities are doubling down on opacity and in fact are writing it into law in New Jersey we're seeing a pattern of eroding transparency and making it much more murky for the potential for abuses than a whole host of Fashions Republican Holly shapizzi says she's been alarmed by efforts in the legislature to cover up addresses of state and local officials elected and appointed the legislature earlier this year adopted a resolution that would do a rule change with respect to our own personal financial disclosure forms subsequent to that there was a bill that got um adopted by the legislature once again I was a no uh and it extended the rule to essentially everybody on local officials uh planning board zoning board whole host of different people that last bill it doesn't have a fancy name like elections transparency act it's just Senate bill 3363 got a conditional veto from the governor this week not because it was a blow to transparency but because of a technicality on the dates the governor said in his veto statement that he supports the bill I think that coming from the legislature there's this attack on various levels and like and we want to protect people this is just not the best way to go about it assemblyman J Webber also voted no on the bill in his chamber he says that the state bill goes further than Daniel's law that Shields judges law enforcement and other officials from disclosing their addresses which he supports they absolutely should get confidentiality and the protection of of these kinds of shields that I think are warranted the the public officials who should not have their addresses uh withheld uh the public officials who should be very accountable uh and open are those local elected officials like councilman or County Commissioners or people on uh governing bodies who make significant decisions about property decisions or or property developments in their towns because how do you know if your county commissioner doesn't own properties adjacent to a new billion dollar development plan for your town or if the assembly woman even lives in the district she was elected to represent this is New Jersey notorious for corruption I'm not from New Jersey but I've lived here about 20 years even before I moved to New Jersey I heard about New Jersey corruption and my concern is that we're sending a message to people who may have a lesson honorable intentions and gain involved that we're now making it easier for them to betray the public trust the governor's office maintains it's always been committed to transparency some stakeholders around here beg to differ but when your party is in control of all three branches of state government you get to Define what's transparent and how much transparency is in the public interest I'm David Cruz NJ Spotlight news [Music] [Music]