Over-reaction to an Alleged Conflict
Over-reaction to an alleged ethics violation can be as bad as
under-reaction. In Bergen County, NJ, after one of seven <a href="http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/freeholders/default.html" target="”_blank”">freeholders
</a>(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 href="http://www.politickernj.com/42132/preempting-ethics-breach-bergen-dumps…; target="”_blank”">a
post yesterday on the PolitickerNJ blog</a>.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---