You are here
The Costs of No Ethics Reform in San Bernardino County (CA)
Friday, March 12th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
It's been four months since my latest update on San
Bernardino County's failure to follow grand
jury ethics reform recommendations with any action. An op-ed piece
by Bob Stern, president of the Center for
Governmental Studies, in this week's San Bernardino Sun calls for
campaign contribution limits (there are currently none at all), a
prohibition on off-year fundraising, disclosure requirements, and an
ethics commission to enforce the law.
Proposals such as these have been bouncing around for years now in San Bernardino County, but some of the county supervisors have been very creative in their arguments for doing nothing. Stern deals with expected arguments against these rules, including that they will hurt challengers (as if incumbents care), and that the rules won't be enforced (because they don't want an ethics commission).
These supervisors are more creative than Stern gives them credit for. One put out a press release that, according to a post on the San Bernardino Sun website, "compared the [ethics commission] proposal to President Obama's health care reform plan ... [the] point was that the commission would amount to more bureaucracy that taxpayers would foot the bill for."
Another supervisor topped that one: an ethics commission would create "more government to exert more power over the people." Of course, the people it would exert power over would all be in, or running to be in, government. Hardly "the people."
The biggest argument against an EC is that the county can't afford it in this economic climate (needless to say, the idea got nowhere before the recession, as well). An editorial in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin responded to this argument as follows:
The cost of an EC is so much lower than the cost of bad government that only a stupid or crooked politician could raise the issue, recession or not. There's no doubt that it's not a good time to sell the idea, but if the county supervisors were to be as creative (and more honest) selling the idea of ethics reform as they have been stifling it, I doubt they'd have a problem.
Even the supervisor who most supports an EC is opposed to contribution limits, according to a recent Press-Enterprise article about new ethics and structural reform proposals from the district attorney. No one appears to be in favor of even a basic range of ethics reforms. It's likely that any ethics reform in San Bernardino County will have to come via public initiative, not from its legislative body.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Proposals such as these have been bouncing around for years now in San Bernardino County, but some of the county supervisors have been very creative in their arguments for doing nothing. Stern deals with expected arguments against these rules, including that they will hurt challengers (as if incumbents care), and that the rules won't be enforced (because they don't want an ethics commission).
These supervisors are more creative than Stern gives them credit for. One put out a press release that, according to a post on the San Bernardino Sun website, "compared the [ethics commission] proposal to President Obama's health care reform plan ... [the] point was that the commission would amount to more bureaucracy that taxpayers would foot the bill for."
Another supervisor topped that one: an ethics commission would create "more government to exert more power over the people." Of course, the people it would exert power over would all be in, or running to be in, government. Hardly "the people."
The biggest argument against an EC is that the county can't afford it in this economic climate (needless to say, the idea got nowhere before the recession, as well). An editorial in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin responded to this argument as follows:
-
We say the county can't afford not to establish an ethics
commission. Consider that Jack Brown, CEO of Stater Bros. and one of
our most esteemed businessmen, has complained that the county's
reputation for corruption dogs even him when he meets with business
people and officials outside the county. "Who got indicted in your
county today?" is a smirking question he gets asked. It can't do much
for the county's attractiveness to legitimate businesses to be known as
a den of corruption. It's not good to be the butt of jokes.
The cost of an EC is so much lower than the cost of bad government that only a stupid or crooked politician could raise the issue, recession or not. There's no doubt that it's not a good time to sell the idea, but if the county supervisors were to be as creative (and more honest) selling the idea of ethics reform as they have been stifling it, I doubt they'd have a problem.
Even the supervisor who most supports an EC is opposed to contribution limits, according to a recent Press-Enterprise article about new ethics and structural reform proposals from the district attorney. No one appears to be in favor of even a basic range of ethics reforms. It's likely that any ethics reform in San Bernardino County will have to come via public initiative, not from its legislative body.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments