You are here
Over-reaction to an Alleged Conflict
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Over-reaction to an alleged ethics violation can be as bad as
under-reaction. In Bergen County, NJ, after one of seven freeholders
(the county council), at his first meeting, voted to continue to
keep county funds in a bank owned by the parent of the company he works for, an
ethics complaint was filed and then the county administrator called on
all county offices to take their money out of the bank, according to a
post yesterday on the PolitickerNJ blog.
The over-reaction undermines trust in those governing Bergen County. The county Democratic organization typed up the complaint, which was filed seven months after the vote, but much closer to election season. The county administrator ordered the accounts closed at the request of the freeholders chair rather than after a vote of all the freeholders (at which the accused freeholder could have recused himself, if the ethics board so advised him).
According to what the accused freeholder said, the freeholders chair was the last person who should have been involved with this matter. The accused freeholder said that the chair hurried the vote at his first freeholder meeting, despite the fact that the accused freeholder had made a request in a closed session for clarity regarding any conflict he might have had. Why would his conflict not be clear? Because he has nothing to do with the bank itself; he works for the financial advisor subsidiary of the bank's parent company.
The vote wasn't the only thing that was hurried. Since the ethics complaint had not yet been acted on, it was premature to enforce (that is, close the bank accounts) what was not yet been found to be a violation. Sometimes it's important to act quickly to preserve the public trust, but no one could believe that the bank accounts had anything to do with the accused freeholder's vote, and it isn't even clear that he has a conflict.
Since the accused freeholder sought advice, and it was his first meeting, the only reason for an ethics complaint seven months later could be politics. And since the county had been doing business with the bank for fifteen years, the other freeholders voted to continue doing business, and the accused freeholder had no special power or position in the matter, the only reason for closing the accounts could be politics.
If what is reported is true, considering that government ethics, including enforcement, is about gaining citizens' trust in government, Bergen County's freeholders, especially its chair, its administrator, and its Democratic party organization effectively have ethics violations of their own. They should reopen the bank accounts, publicly apologize to the accused freeholder, and explain to the people of Bergen County why their over-reaction was wrong.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The over-reaction undermines trust in those governing Bergen County. The county Democratic organization typed up the complaint, which was filed seven months after the vote, but much closer to election season. The county administrator ordered the accounts closed at the request of the freeholders chair rather than after a vote of all the freeholders (at which the accused freeholder could have recused himself, if the ethics board so advised him).
According to what the accused freeholder said, the freeholders chair was the last person who should have been involved with this matter. The accused freeholder said that the chair hurried the vote at his first freeholder meeting, despite the fact that the accused freeholder had made a request in a closed session for clarity regarding any conflict he might have had. Why would his conflict not be clear? Because he has nothing to do with the bank itself; he works for the financial advisor subsidiary of the bank's parent company.
The vote wasn't the only thing that was hurried. Since the ethics complaint had not yet been acted on, it was premature to enforce (that is, close the bank accounts) what was not yet been found to be a violation. Sometimes it's important to act quickly to preserve the public trust, but no one could believe that the bank accounts had anything to do with the accused freeholder's vote, and it isn't even clear that he has a conflict.
Since the accused freeholder sought advice, and it was his first meeting, the only reason for an ethics complaint seven months later could be politics. And since the county had been doing business with the bank for fifteen years, the other freeholders voted to continue doing business, and the accused freeholder had no special power or position in the matter, the only reason for closing the accounts could be politics.
If what is reported is true, considering that government ethics, including enforcement, is about gaining citizens' trust in government, Bergen County's freeholders, especially its chair, its administrator, and its Democratic party organization effectively have ethics violations of their own. They should reopen the bank accounts, publicly apologize to the accused freeholder, and explain to the people of Bergen County why their over-reaction was wrong.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments