Rooting for the Refuseniks

A passing statement in yesterday's New York Times article on the continuously unfolding story of NJ governor Chris Christie's bullying led me to wonder why it is that indictments based on sting operations focus only on the government officials who give in to the sting's temptations. Not only is this not fair to the many officials who withstand the temptations, but it also gives a false picture to the public of the officials they elect.

The statement I am referring to is that of Hoboken mayor Dawn Zimmer, who was president of the council when she lost the mayoral race to the election lawyer who was arrested as part of the Jersey Sting only a month after his election. She said now, as well as back then, according to an article on nj.com from July 24, 2009, that her campaign had also been approached, but would not agree to a meeting.

Another Hoboken councilwoman said she too turned away an approach by the sting operation. But the U.S. Attorney's Office would not confirm or deny what they said.

It is in the public interest for the feds to provide the names of all the officials who turned away their sting operation. Even if they couldn't disclose the names at the time, because the operation was still ongoing, they could at least have said, "Ten mayors, twenty council members, and umpteen aides turned our people away." They could put up a scoreboard on the sting's website:

On the Takers - 16

Refuseniks - 23

And provide details in a box score. We could root for the Refuseniks, watching their numbers grow. Even if there were only two Refuseniks, it's good to know that not every official is both on the take and stupid enough to take money from and make promises to a stranger.

Another element in this story that is passed over is the fact that Zimmer protected herself not by being impervious to temptation, but by not wanting to take money from those seeking benefits from the city government. Here's what her husband told Hoboken Now back in 2009:

"She said, 'I don't want to take any developer money.' And I told her, 'Well, then you have to stop moaning about how much we're spending — you have to stop telling me we're throwing away our kids' college education.'" According to [her husband], Zimmer said she'd "rather write the check herself" than take money from a developer.

In other words, Zimmer was protected by her desire not to create, or appear to have, conflicts of interest by legally taking campaign contributions, which she perceived as gifts. Here is yet another instance where being "ethical," even when acting legally, also keeps you from being tempted into criminal misconduct. If you don't accept legal gifts from restricted sources, you certainly can't accept bribes, which only come from restricted sources and from those posing as restricted sources.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---