Local Legislators Investigate an Ethics Commission in Suffolk County

When I wrote about the disclosure controversy in Suffolk County back in July, I didn't realize that another interesting ethics issue was going on there. In late June, the county legislature had instituted an investigation of the county ethics commission. One reason for this investigation appears to be the commission's decision to allow the county executive to file only a state disclosure form, even though, it turned out, this decision was legally correct. There also appear to be questions about officials influencing the commission, which commission members deny.

According to an article in the Long Island Press, the county legislature created a special committee to investigate the EC's impartiality. The committee stated its purpose as follows: “The goal of the committee is to determine whether or not the commission is complying with county law or if the statute needs to be updated." In addition, the legislature hired special counsel to head the investigation.

According to a piece today on the website of WSHU, a local public radio station, the committee had its first meeting yesterday and requested numerous documents from the EC, hoping to get them without a subpoena. The committee made reference to "questionable and inconsistent decisions" in favor of the county executive and his allies. It's worth noting that the EC's three members are appointed as follows:  two by the legislature, one by the executive.

Although the committee says it is seeking transparency, it appears that the investigation will be done behind closed doors. The county executive, who appears to be the true target of the investigation, wants it all out in public. It's not clear what the EC wants, but if it too wants an open investigation, it would appear that the county legislature would have to do its work in the open except, perhaps, for limited strategy discussions.

I find it troubling that a local legislative body is conducting an investigation of an EC when there appears to be no evidence of illegal or unethical activity, and when the only allegation appears to be the overbroad one of complying with county law. If there is not even one specific allegation, the investigation appears to be a fishing expedition and misuse of taxpayer funds. And it chills the activities of an EC to know that if it reaches a decision that elected officials disapprove of, on one side or the other, it will be investigated and the individuals' reputations impugned.

At the meeting where the investigation was first discussed, a quotation about the EC was read: “I had some real problems with the idea of [the] setting up of a powerful committee that would not be directly accountable to the public, to oversee elected officials. The question becomes who checks the checker?” This typical criticism of ECs was spoken by a county legislator who is now the county executive, and the occasion was the creation of the county EC.

Now the county executive is accusing the directly accountable county legislature of a partisan witch hunt. What great evidence that the witch hunt/accountability argument against ECs is hooey!

ECs need not be without oversight, but oversight should not come from those under its jurisdiction, and any investigation should be based on specific allegations, just as ethics investigations are required to be.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---