Rooting for the Refuseniks
A passing statement in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/nyregion/making-claim-towns-mayor-gai…; target="”_blank”">yesterday's
New York <i>Times</i> article</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/07/beth_mason_and_dawn_zimm…; target="”_blank”">an
article on nj.com from July 24, 2009</a>, that her campaign had
also been approached, but would not agree to a meeting. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<blockquote>
<b>On the Takers</b> - 16<br>
<br>
<b>Refuseniks</b> - 23</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>Hoboken Now</i> back in 2009:<blockquote>
"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.</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---