You are here
Discussing Ethics Reform Behind Closed Doors in Luzerne County, PA
Monday, February 24th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
According to an
editorial yesterday in the Luzerne County (PA) Citizens Voice,
the Luzerne County council, on advice of the county
attorney, is planning to hold an executive session tomorrow to
discuss changes to its ethics code. The editorial says it would be wrong to hold an executive session.
The county attorney's reasoning is that the changes present a "very high potential for litigation." Why, you ask, would a discussion of ethics reforms lead to litigation? Because the county attorney "maintains that people who had cases before the ethics commission under the current ethics code could sue on the grounds that the original code was flawed."
Well, they could do that, anyway. After all, I've written four blog posts about these problems, going back to 2010 (here's a link to the most recent one, which links to the others). And then, in a Miscellany post, I wrote, "If a city or county wants to know how not to set up an ethics program, Luzerne County, PA is a good place to look." I'm sure there are other criticisms out there.
It's irresponsible not to openly discuss fixing a law that is flawed. And it's illegal. As the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association's counsel is quoted as saying, "The fact that an issue or a piece of business might end up in litigation does not rise to the level of the litigation executive session in the Sunshine Act." In short, everything a government discusses might lead to litigation. To hold an executive session, there has to be litigation.
In addition, transparency is an important part of government ethics. Government ethics laws and problems with proceedings need to be discussed in the open, so that the public will trust the ethics process. Otherwise, they will assume the ethics reforms are intended to protect high-level officials.
It's good that Luzerne County is finally talking about the problems with its ethics program. But if this discussion is held behind closed doors, it is unlikely that any of my criticisms, or anyone else's, will be considered. The article only mentions one change being discussed: bringing in a panel of three lawyers to investigate ethics complaints. That sounds like overkill. I hope it's only a small part of what will be discussed. In public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The county attorney's reasoning is that the changes present a "very high potential for litigation." Why, you ask, would a discussion of ethics reforms lead to litigation? Because the county attorney "maintains that people who had cases before the ethics commission under the current ethics code could sue on the grounds that the original code was flawed."
Well, they could do that, anyway. After all, I've written four blog posts about these problems, going back to 2010 (here's a link to the most recent one, which links to the others). And then, in a Miscellany post, I wrote, "If a city or county wants to know how not to set up an ethics program, Luzerne County, PA is a good place to look." I'm sure there are other criticisms out there.
It's irresponsible not to openly discuss fixing a law that is flawed. And it's illegal. As the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association's counsel is quoted as saying, "The fact that an issue or a piece of business might end up in litigation does not rise to the level of the litigation executive session in the Sunshine Act." In short, everything a government discusses might lead to litigation. To hold an executive session, there has to be litigation.
In addition, transparency is an important part of government ethics. Government ethics laws and problems with proceedings need to be discussed in the open, so that the public will trust the ethics process. Otherwise, they will assume the ethics reforms are intended to protect high-level officials.
It's good that Luzerne County is finally talking about the problems with its ethics program. But if this discussion is held behind closed doors, it is unlikely that any of my criticisms, or anyone else's, will be considered. The article only mentions one change being discussed: bringing in a panel of three lawyers to investigate ethics complaints. That sounds like overkill. I hope it's only a small part of what will be discussed. In public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
