County Ethics Embraced By Its Cities and Towns
Ethics reform won big in Palm Beach County on Tuesday. The final tallies were published on Friday. According to an article in yesterday's Palm Beach Post [1], every single city and town in the county voted in favor of applying the county's code to their town. Overall, 72% of voters supported this reform. Even in the town of Palm Beach, whose council and civic association opposed the reform, 60% of voters supported reform.

The cost of this reform doesn't appear to have been a problem. The county will be responsible for paying for the ethics commission. And the inspector general office's costs will be shared between the county, cities, towns and other agencies that fall under its jurisdiction. The amount paid by each would be equal to one quarter of 1 percent of the amount a city or town spends on its annual contracts.

Recalling a Variance as a Response to a Conflict
Here's a new way of dealing with a conflict. According to an article in the Nanaimo Bulletin [2], when the mayor of Nanaimo, British Columbia (pop. 79,000) found that a council member had voted for a variance for a company that sponsors a junior hockey team he partly owns, the mayor recalled the issuance of the variance under a charter provision that enables him to recall a vote within 30 days of the original vote. The vote on the variance had been 5-4.

The company is up in arms, because it has already invested Can$160,000 in the sign that was approved.

Dual Office Holding
An editorial in The Record [3] this week presents a good argument against dual office holding, a problem in New Jersey which has only been partially solved, because dual office holders have been grandfathered in. The editorial focuses on an interesting case study, which I will present in edited form:

House Speaker Sheila Oliver, D-Essex is an administrator for Essex County. The county is led by Joseph DiVincenzo, also a Democrat, and also more politically powerful than Oliver. DiVincenzo supports Governor Christie's proposed arbitration reform that would impose a hard cap of 2 percent on arbitration awards.

Oliver initially backed a weaker version, but when she couldn't get the votes in her chamber, she tabled the bill. It was a sign of weak leadership, but also a sign of the conflicts of interest inside the Assembly. DiVincenzo didn't want the weakened bill. How independent, despite her protests, can the speaker be of the Essex County executive if she also works for Essex County?

When state legislators can sit on a city council or serve in a police department, they no longer are free of bias in deciding about arbitration reform. The city councilman wants a hard cap. The police detective wants arbitration rules to stay as is. This is not rocket science. It is bad government; it is our state government.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548