Local Legislators Investigate an Ethics Commission in Suffolk County
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/poor-draftmanship-and-poor-ethics" target="”_blank”">When
I wrote about the disclosure controversy in Suffolk County</a> 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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/08/26/suffolks-ethics-probe-enigma-…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Long Island <i>Press</i></a>, 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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.wshu.org/news/story.php?ID=8185" target="”_blank”">a
piece today on the website of WSHU</a>, 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---