A Miscellany
<b>County Ethics Embraced By Its Cities and Towns</b><br>
Ethics reform won big in Palm Beach County on Tuesday. The final
tallies were published on Friday. According to <a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/1024925.html" target="”_blank”">an article in
yesterday's Palm Beach <i>Post</i></a>, every single city and town in the
county voted in favor of applying the county's code to their town.
Overall, 72% of voters supported this reform. Even in the town of Palm
Beach, whose council and civic association opposed the reform, 60% of
voters supported reform.<br>
<br>
The cost of this reform doesn't appear to have been a problem. The
county will be responsible for paying for the ethics commission. And
the inspector general office's costs will be shared between the county,
cities, towns and other agencies that fall under its jurisdiction. The
amount paid by each would be equal to one quarter of 1 percent of the
amount a city or town spends on its annual contracts.<br>
<br>
<b>Recalling a Variance as a Response to a Conflict</b><br>
Here's a new way of dealing with a conflict. According to <a href="http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin…; target="”_blank”">an article in
the Nanaimo <i>Bulletin</i></a>, when the mayor of Nanaimo, British Columbia (pop.
79,000) found that a council member had voted for a variance for a
company that sponsors a junior hockey team he partly owns, the mayor
recalled the issuance of the variance under a charter provision that
enables him to recall a vote within 30 days of the original vote. The
vote on the variance had been 5-4.<br>
<br>
The company is up in arms, because it has already invested Can$160,000
in the sign that was approved.<br>
<br>
<b>Dual Office Holding</b><br>
<a href="http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/106590848_Reform_now_or_later_…; target="”_blank”">An editorial in <i>The Record</i></a> this week presents a good argument against
dual office holding, a problem in New Jersey which has only been
partially solved, because dual office holders have been grandfathered
in. The editorial focuses on an interesting case study, which I will
present in edited form:<ul>
<p>House Speaker Sheila Oliver, D-Essex is an administrator for Essex
County. The county is led by Joseph DiVincenzo, also a Democrat, and
also more politically powerful than Oliver. DiVincenzo supports
Governor Christie's proposed arbitration reform that would impose a
hard cap of 2 percent on arbitration awards.</p>
<p>Oliver initially backed a weaker version, but when she couldn't get
the votes in her chamber, she tabled the bill. It was a sign of weak
leadership, but also a sign of the conflicts of interest inside the
Assembly. DiVincenzo didn't want the weakened bill. How independent,
despite her protests, can the speaker be of the Essex County executive
if she also works for Essex County?</p>
<p>When state legislators can sit on a city council or serve in a
police department, they no longer are free of bias in deciding about
arbitration reform. The city councilman wants a hard cap. The police
detective wants arbitration rules to stay as is. This is not rocket
science. It is bad government; it is our state government.</ul>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---