Last week, the Post reported that Mr. Wilder had

Last week, the Post reported that Mr. Wilder had failed, on his latest financial disclosure form, to include a 27-acre piece of property in Louisa County and 2,500 shares of stock in Virginia First Savings Bank. Both assets are held by the same HLS Associates Trust, of which Mr. Wilder is the sole beneficiary.

After the omission was called to his attention, Mr. Wilder filed an amended return listing the two assets.

Mr. Wilder blames Mr. Salomonsky for the error, and his friend accepted the judgement. He said his lack of familiarity with the state’s conflict of interest law was the cause.

While it’s admirable for Mr. Salomonsky to take the rap, the responsibility remains Mr. Wilder’s. As a state senator when the act was written in 1983, and Lt. Governor when it was amended in 1987, he must be fully aware of the provisions of the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act. He is also, or should be, aware that the act contains a clause which states, “This chapter shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purpose.”

Since the 2,500 stock shares are worth just over $10,000, and the property has been assessed at a value of $32,000, both clearly fall under the provisions of the act.

Similarly, the Richmond property — though perhaps not technically covered by the reporting requirements then in effect — was certainly still a Wilder asset when he declared that it was not.

Why the semantic games, Mr. Wilder?

In asking for the trust of the citizens of this Commonwealth by seeking election to the state’s highest office, Mr. Wilder has placed himself in the position of being held to the highest standard of accountability in his personal and professional dealings.

The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve some straight answers about Mr. Wilder’s financial dealings. So far his responses have been far from satisfactory.