The Standard-Examiner editorial board is definitely "on a roll" this week. For the second time in three days Std-Ex readers are treated this morning to a strong editorial, aimed at promoting honesty and integrity in local government.
In the instant case, our Weber County Commissioners have been considering enacting ethics legislation (inexplicably called a pledge,) which would would prohibit Weber County elected officials from exploiting their elective positions for private gain during "or after" their term of office. Whereas, it had appeared in an earlier Std-Ex article that the commission was in agreement as to the the appropriateness of this measure; the Std-Ex now opines that two commissioners have gotten cold feet.
Commissioners Bischoff and Dearden now reportedly believe the proposed language is overly broad, and we do believe they may have a valid point. As proposed, the prohibition would trail off into perpetuity, and could arguably subject outgoing elected officials to ethical scrutiny for entire lifetimes. This would be unreasonably burdensome we believe, and we thus suggest that the commission enact the legislation with a reasonable "tail," a year or two -- or some other finite time limit after leaving office.
With this exception, we believe enactment of the proposed legislation would be a very good thing, and we urge our gentle readers to contact their commissioners to suggest that they pass something tangible and reasonable. All elected public officials should be bound to conform their behavior to avoidance of conflicts actual, potential and perceived, both during their public service and for a reasonable time after leaving office. We believe this legislation would be a step in the right direction.
And what say our gentle readers about this?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
Would this legislation apply to all elected officials in any office within the County, or just those elected to County Government offices? It would be wonderful if it were to apply to current Mayor, even for only a year or two.
This measure would affect elected officials in county government only, unfortunetely. We do believe however that this measure also presents an ideal opportunity for our county commission to set an example for other local governments.
Why not have legislation requiring all elected officials to vow to use their office for the benefit of the public for 5 years and not for their own personal advancement during that period.
Maybe I'm misreading the story, but I don't think any ethics "legislation" has been introduced. Only a pledge. No penalties attached to breaking it. It's merely a pledge that it is proposed all WC Commissioners take.
As such, I think it's pretty meaningless. Sort of like requiring loyalty oaths. The dis-loyal won't blink an eye at taking the pledge to divert suspicion, and the loyal don't need the oath in the first place.
So, absent any teeth... penalties for violating the "pledge" it all seems to me like a tempest in a teapot. If we elect Commissioners who don't have a good grasp of what ethical conduct requires of a public official, or who don't much care what ethical conduct requires when their own profit can be served by doing otherwise, then we can have them pledge to be ethical up, down, sideways and twice on Sunday and it won't matter a hill of beans in the end. Required pledges, like manditory loyalty oaths, are empty riturals devoid of any significant meaning.
Unless of course the state legislature would like to actually pass ethical conduct legislation with enforceable penalties attached to violations. But that is not what has been proposed for the Weber County Commission.
[NB: Nothing above should be taken as questioning the ethics or conduct of any present, or soon to be seated, Weber County Commissioner. I know very little about them beyond what was in their campaign literature.]
I'd like a couple examples of 'exploitations for gain before or after' office.
What are we getting at here?
In my uninformed state, I'm inclined to agree with Curmudgeon on this one. Egads, Curm!
As suggested in our original write-up, Curm & Sharon, we found the use of the term "pledge" to be a trifle "muddy." We'd have preferred the term "oath" if we'd had our druthers.
Nevertheless, we would take the term "pledge" to be synonymous with "oath." The requirement of a formal pledge or oath would establish moral and ethical norms for elected officers, at the very least, and could possibly be construed as a contractual obligation under the law.
The adoption by the state legislature of a state-wide ethics code (with sanctions,) covering all elected officials would be far preferable, of course. We're not going to hold our breath for that. Still, the passage of a county ordinance or resolution (legislation) mandating the "taking" of a reasonably restrictive ethics pledge (at the county level) would not be an idle act, but rather "a step in the right direction," as we said -- an action which could hardly be described as "meaningless."
Sharon:
What I think was meant by "after" is a county commissioner putting through changes in county regs that would serve the interests of a particular constituent or company [say purely by way of hypothetical example, a large home builder], for which the commission would be rewarded by the homebuilder after he left the commission with a job, or by business shunted the ex-commissioner's way by the homebuilder, etc. What I suspect is meant is something like we have all seen happen in Congress far far too often: Congressmen who serve the interests of aerospace, let's say, and as soon as the law permits after they leave congress are hired on as execs of the aerospace companies they served well while in congress. Something along those lines I suspect.
Rudi:
Wise not to hold your breath waiting for the Utah Legislature to act on ethics legislation. As I recall the House Republican leadership got all over huffy at the mere suggestion that the freebies ought to be cut back, that their votes could possibly be influenced by free meals, free tickets and/or other perks provided by lobbists. [At the time I remember being delighted at their outrage, since what they seemed to be saying was "it takes much more to buy me than Jazz tickets and a few dinners at the New Yorker." Exactly how much more they didn't say, but I figured they were advertising none the less.]
As for the WCC oath or pledge, well, I watched "Inherit the Wind" last night, and maybe the cynicism of H. L. Mencken character [played Gene Kelley] was too much with me. The pledge could do no harm, I agree. But I don't think it will have much practical effect. An unethical commissioner would have no qualms about taking it and then behaving unethically anyway, and an ethical commissioner would behave ethically whether he took the pledge or not. But you are right, symbolic acts are not necessarily meaningless.
True, Curm and Rudi. A sad commentary on us all that one who purports to defend and support the Constitution must make another 'pledge' to be upright and honest. HUH? Why is this redundancy necessary?
Remember "WHO DO YOU TRUST?"
Well, WHO (whom) do we?
Well, the Standard finally did a couple of intelligent editorials and today, Saturday December 30, the TV guide starts with the first page for December 23 which was last Saturday.
There is no page for today's listings and none in the regular sections of the paper as there usually is so for today NOTHING OF A SCHEDULE.
Which is probably just as well as there won't be anything of interest on television anyway.
But I paid for a TV guide and I want what I pay for.
The Standard just keeps going downhill.
think i'll quit...
No bigee...The Standard started this year with a picture of a classic WWII P-51 Mustang, propellers and all....And called it a jet, in the caption.
Happy New Year!
Just sayin...
Don't know how the caption screw up happened, but I do know that a lot of younger adults working today have never ridden in a prop plane. For the younger set, "jet" and "plane" are synonymns more or less. I wonder if the caption writer was one of them.
In any case, you publish something as extensive as a paper daily, mistakes will creep in. Comes with the territory. Which gives some readers [like me] the opportunity to write snarky letters to editors about strange headlines that say the opposite of what the story says, or captions like the one you mention. Great fun. And every editor I've ever known has told me they have a "grammar patrol" out there, most often retired English teachers, who come down on them regularly for grammatical gaffes and creative punctuation. Every paper I know runs a "corrections" section. For good reason. SE doesn't seem appreciably worse, or better, than most on this score.
We'd miss Jay Leno's headlines if it weren't for 'missing in action' editors!
Interesting article in the Standard this New's morning. It appears that the City administration has a potential harassment cover-up scandal on their hands. Quite a coincidence that the discussion is on ethics...hmmm.
Also fun item in Paul Rolly's column in the SL Trib this morning. The column is a list of Rolly's tongue-in-cheek predictions for the coming year:
* Law enforcement officers from around the state hold a peaceful demonstration at the Legislature, asking lawmakers to pass a law preventing cities from tying pay raises to the number of traffic citations issued. Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner, who also is a state representative from Weber County, suspends all the Ogden cops who participate in the demonstration. He later says it has nothing to do with the rally. They all were about to be suspended for doing other naughty things already.
Rolly's predictions are probably closer to the mark than we've anticipated.
How about that Martinez article?
He said'
'no, I didn't"...you said, 'no, I didn't'...can't that gang who can't shoot straight at least AIM straight? Take away their BB guns immediately.."you'll shoot your eyes out, kids."
How can anyone believe that these same REPUBLICAN WEBER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS have any sort of ethics in their bones. "Laugh out loud." They all three sat and watched the REPUBLICAN COUNTY RECORDER trying to take his own neighbors property, by falseifying land descriptions.(which is a felony).
They did nothing. When are the republicans going to bring justice and ethics back to politics?
The duties of a County Comissioner is to oversee all county operations.
I guess they just had their blinders on while they were hanging out with the A. G. Mark Shirtleff. Because they all think they all think they have no duty to oversee.
New comments are not allowed.