You are here
Ethics Reform Suggestions in Cumberland County (NJ): Transparency and an Odd EC Setup
Friday, August 21st, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Republican candidates in Cumberland County, in southern New Jersey
(pop. 150,000), are pushing for several ethics reforms, including some
fresh ideas.
According to an article in the Press of Atlantic City and an article on nj.com, the focus is on opening up public access to information. Suggested transparency changes include posting more government records online, including budget, audits, contracts, and reports, as well as Open Public Records Act requests and responses; allowing the public to film or tape public meetings, and posting video recordings of county meetings online; and posting agendas for county meetings no later than three days prior to a meeting. These are all great ideas.
Just because there are state sunshine laws doesn't mean that local governments can't make transparency requirements more specific or more stringent. Public debate is dependent on access to information, and today it is so easy and inexpensive to provide such access, there is no good reason not to. But the same desire for working in the dark exists among those local government officials who either have something to hide or don't want to be bothered by informed citizens.
I don't think the candidates' other ethics reform suggestions are quite so valuable. They want to create a County Ethics Advisory Board consisting of mayors that, according to the nj.com article, would "review any new policies or revisions having to do with ethics, institute reviews of areas in county government where ethics regulations may be necessary and investigate conduct of any county official, officer or employee."
According to an article in the Daily Journal, the candidates see this board as "independent and autonomous," but it's hard to see mayors as a neutral group investigating the conduct of their county (and party) colleagues. Just because they're not county officials doesn't mean there would be no conflicts in dealing with county ethics.
But this is a fresh idea, and it would be interesting to see how such a board actually worked.
Other suggestions include forbidding county employees from appointments to independent authority boards (a good idea, if officials are also included) and giving local firms first dibs on legal, architectural, and other professional contracts, which is not an ethics reform at all. In fact, it skews contracts toward exactly those firms most likely to be favored already, costing citizens more and causing an appearance of improper favoritism toward campaign contributors.
It's no coincidence that there are no Republicans on the county board. It is usually those out of power who seek to open government up, at least when there isn't a scandal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Press of Atlantic City and an article on nj.com, the focus is on opening up public access to information. Suggested transparency changes include posting more government records online, including budget, audits, contracts, and reports, as well as Open Public Records Act requests and responses; allowing the public to film or tape public meetings, and posting video recordings of county meetings online; and posting agendas for county meetings no later than three days prior to a meeting. These are all great ideas.
Just because there are state sunshine laws doesn't mean that local governments can't make transparency requirements more specific or more stringent. Public debate is dependent on access to information, and today it is so easy and inexpensive to provide such access, there is no good reason not to. But the same desire for working in the dark exists among those local government officials who either have something to hide or don't want to be bothered by informed citizens.
I don't think the candidates' other ethics reform suggestions are quite so valuable. They want to create a County Ethics Advisory Board consisting of mayors that, according to the nj.com article, would "review any new policies or revisions having to do with ethics, institute reviews of areas in county government where ethics regulations may be necessary and investigate conduct of any county official, officer or employee."
According to an article in the Daily Journal, the candidates see this board as "independent and autonomous," but it's hard to see mayors as a neutral group investigating the conduct of their county (and party) colleagues. Just because they're not county officials doesn't mean there would be no conflicts in dealing with county ethics.
But this is a fresh idea, and it would be interesting to see how such a board actually worked.
Other suggestions include forbidding county employees from appointments to independent authority boards (a good idea, if officials are also included) and giving local firms first dibs on legal, architectural, and other professional contracts, which is not an ethics reform at all. In fact, it skews contracts toward exactly those firms most likely to be favored already, costing citizens more and causing an appearance of improper favoritism toward campaign contributors.
It's no coincidence that there are no Republicans on the county board. It is usually those out of power who seek to open government up, at least when there isn't a scandal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
