It does sound like the form is over reaching. How does the value of a person's house or the amount of money their spouse makes affect how someone is doing their job. Do they really think principals are take bribes? And if so, are they really large enough to determine the value of the house they can buy? They do not determine school system contracts where real money could be made. The board and superintendent on the other hand do have dealings where very large sums of money are exchanged. I'd love to see Dr. Hairston's report. Talk about a man who could work some perks into a contract.

I do not believe their personal finances are anybody's business!! That is OVERSTEPPING their boundaries!!!

The government, apparently on all levels, want to know everything and control too much of our lives. Sadly, I do not believe we are the land of the free, at least, not all of us!

The form is outragous and goes way beyond.The salary they receive from their Job should be available and nothing else PERIOD!!!

Simply enter erroneous information.
For example:
Residence: I live in a van down by the river,It's value $5,000.
Marriage Status:Not married,but spend x,xxx amount for "companionship",if you know what I mean(wink,wink ;-)
Number of children:Somewhere between 15-20(I lost track after the ninth one)
Other employment:Part time Herbal Farmer,Chemist and Sales Associate.

See how easy that is.I'm sure even a politician could fill out one. ;-)

"I don't really have anything to hide, so I didn't have a problem."

This is the comment of a principal at Hereford High School, a Mr. Last?

Mr. Last, the police would like to search your home, car, office, and computer for anything that might be illegal, if you have nothing to hide, why not?

Perhaps you should reconsider your remarks or your profession.

I know that people who work for the federal government have to submit, yearly, information very similar to this. That is because they hold high level clearances and in the past those who have compromised information that they know or can get their hands on have done it for money. Because that had happened now tens of thousands of government employees must show that they do not have unusually lavish lifestyles, aren't hiding gobs of money someplace, or are living on the edge of their finances so that if someone with ill intent offered them money, merchandise, property, or trips to exotic locations for information they could pass to them that they wouldn't be in a position to jump at the opportunity to ease their situation.

If some legislator could give us a straight forward answer as to why this is required of school administrators maybe we might be enlightened, but right now it looks like a foolish political ploy to show some that educators being paid by our local governments are driving expensive cars and living in expensive houses. Its too much. Its too much information for the federal government to have, to much information for private businesses to know and definitely too much information for our local governments to have, and it gets us no further as a society. The idea is unnecessary.

I think "high level clearances" are another ball of wax entirely. I would suggest that it is a definite "red flag" that should not play well with our citizens and perhaps even alarm. If principals, why not teachers, custodial employees, groundskeepers, and then on to all citizens at large.....Whoa Nellie!!! Wonder who came up with this interesting ploy? and better yet WHY? Could it have anything to do with a turn in the road in the direction of redistribution of wealth? I know, I know, I am being silly..... mmmmm....nevertheless, seems like one of the biggest "red flags" to come up on the horizon in recent times.

Each individual has a right to privacy...as long as they privately do no harm to others.
The degree of privacy that one lives with depends on one's idea of freedom...
Like freedom, we must fight to maintain our privacy, the government will take all that the sheeple are willing to give. I will be the "last" to surrender freedom or privacy...
In this case "Last" seems to be first to surrender...not a good example for his students..

Let the politicians get it right first, then we can discuss this issue. Lorna has a good point. I think at the superintendents level this is a must. We all remember Hariston's no-bid contract issues.

Speed light cameras issue tickets while school is closed, gov. Inspectors show up if a child wants to set up a lemonade stand! Big Brother is Watching! Waiting to tell people what to do, when and how to do it, who to do it with! How about detailed financial disclosures for every elected official and buearocrat! Government needs to solve some real problems, not erode our Liberty!

And so the very idea of "DRONES" in search of....what? how? why? where? who? Would not want to be accused of paranoia, but, honey child, this is beginning to sounds more and more communistic as opposed to little ole socialistic!!! Progress seems to point toward deciding first who is going to be the biggest political base and go for it...but first build it and they will come and the remaining folks will drown in our sorrow that we let it happen, all without firing a shot from either direction...step, by step, by step well planned with a great deal of patience!!! RUN FORREST RUN!!!

And, Dan, who is government....we the people are the government hiring others to do the work of the people but with constraints...and that is where we goofed....no contraints!!!

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877

Wow! Renee...this statement was perfection!!! President Garfield was so very much on the mark in 1877 and his assessment has continued to ring true up to this day, and will continue through many, many centuries down the road. But truth be told, it does not take a rocket scientist to see through the thinly veiled moves and goobledegook coming down the pike at the present time. We better think long and very, very hard this go round!!!

Slow down Tim! I must not have been clear Tim. I didn't get a speeding ticket. I was attempting ( maybe I failed) to use a speed camera as a metaphor for the prying eyes of Big Brother ( big government)!

Renee, that's Awesome!

Lorna, you're right!

On a positive note, this could be a great consulting opportunity for Senator Currie.

WOW, you can all take an issue off track really fast and run with it in all directions. The fact is the state found one person breaking the law and needs to do something about it. That something is to make everyone else feel like they've done something wrong and now have to report and account for every penny they make and spend. The truth is that politician and people in high ranking positions have access to contract deals where they can line their pockets at tax payer expense. I'm sure it's been done here in Baltimore County, but that doesn't mean that everyone does it. Principals do not negotiate those types of contracts and it's simply stupid to be going after them as if they do.

A persons finances are none of their business. I agree with you John.

the real question is who requiring this and why since it does not appear that was the case in the past. then you will know who big brother is.

The amount of information being required due to the change in reporting requirements is even giving some school board members pause. At least two have already resigned in other school districts. As the filing deadline approaches for next year you may see more school board members leave office instead of submitting to this degree of intrusiveness.

Ok, finally got around to reading this.

I work for an organization that required a lot of this information above. Employers in the private industry consider the risk of a person when hiring them when they deal with sensitive information. There's also public trust factor in my case.

I wouldn't be surprised if police officers have something similar. If not now, in the near future. Why? They carry guns and authority.

Now, the real question is: Is the principal of a school a 'high security' position?
I'd say it's not - so this is a bit out of line. If they are going to mandate this, why don't we make sure all of our local politicians are held to - at least - the same standards of disclosure...

I would say that until major campaign finance reform can be accomplished... the thought of something this invasive shouldn't even exist.... The real crooks rank high in the political arena...not at this level...

I think this really crosses a line. The questions are highly inappropriate, particularly the ones concerning spouses. I understand if the administrators have ethical concerns they need to look into but dragging everyone else in these folks' lives into the matter is uncalled for. I can't really get behind questions that require disclosure of property value either.

Attempting to force principals and other education officials to answer questionably ethical questions in an attempt to enforce ethics is ludicrous. The whole system suffers from this kind of misguided logic.

i find this VERY interesting and not all too coincidental with the rise of 'reform" measures we can expect to see with our new State Superintendent who happens to be a former Leader Scholar with the Eli Broad Foundation. You must read: http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/04/how-to-tell-if-your-school-district-is-infected-by-the-broad-virus/ to see what we can anticipate happening to our schools