NCCo Tries to Make Ethics Reports Harder to Get
According to the NJ, the NCCo Council is looking to provide itself some cover from having to release some of its ethics reports.
You read that right.
Paul Clark and George Smiley are working at a bank shot with this bill — trying to pretend that the work of the Commission doesn’t count with the public unless they find a problem:
The ordinance, drafted by County Councilman George Smiley, would prohibit the independent commission from releasing a “final order” unless its members have reached a majority opinion on whether an ethics violation has occurred.
This Final Order releases the results of an Ethics Commission investigation to the public — whether there was a violations finding or no. So if Clark and Smiley get their way, NCCo taxpayers would never know about work undertaken by this group. Unless this group determines that a violation has occurred.
Clark and this Council have very strong instincts for trying to retreat behind some protective covering. Especially since Clark himself has a habit of working to see what the limits might be of how far he can take conflict of interest behavior. Cutting off all sunshine to the work of this Commission lets him explore that line with impunity. And there’s this gem from George Smiley:
Smiley said some of the reports can make the subject of an investigation feel guilty even if he or she has done nothing wrong.
“It appears that, and I think quite unfairly, that the Ethics Commission is untouchable,” he said. “No one should ever question what they do because it would appear unethical.”
Well, heck. This is just all sorts of wrong. But lets start with the Ethics Commission — it isn’t worth much if it isn’t independent and free to operate in the light. It seems a fair compromise to let this Commission do their work and release their findings. I’d think that a released report that clearly vindicates someone ought to be a good thing, not a cause for retroactive guilt. And even if there is retroactive guilt — the process is the important part. And no one should question what the Commission does because it would be unethical? Is Mr. Smiley 15 years old?
The Ethics Commission exists to review the activity of those trusted to do the business of the County — to make sure that work is done within the ethical and conflict of interest regulations or guidelines set. It exists to make sure that citizens have some confidence in their government — a thing that Mr. Clark has been challenging pretty routinely all year. You can’t have confidence building or an airing of conflicts of interest in secret. Taxpayers should know what the results of this Commission’s work is — especially if it clears someone.
They plan on voting on this in September — but there is no note as to when they will vote on a replacement member or even if there are additional replacement members waiting for hearings or votes. If I were you Mr. Clark, Mr. Smiley and the rest of the NCCo Council — I’d make my first priority getting the Commission fully staffed rather than trying to hide their work.
Tags: NCCo, Open Government
The Ethics Commission should be untouchable. I plan on contacting my county council representative to make sure they know where I stand. So, while the state government gets more open the county government wants to get less open?
Me thinks it is something in the water cooler over at the New Castle County offices. I’m thinking that General Jack D. Ripper might have been on to something. There is obviously a conspiracy to sap and impurify all of their precious bodily fluids over at the County Council.
Gentlemen, gentlemen. You can’t question ethics here. This is the Ethics Commission.
Yes. Up, down, or questionable, the results should be made public. Just because the Commission determines that someone didn’t technically commit a violation doesn’t mean there was nothing fishy. “Unethical” means different things to different people. Even if the official didn’t go far enough to trigger official sanctions, he still may have done things that don’t sit right with voters. Those voters have a right to know just how much their elected officials have tried to game the system, if that’s what happened.
And if the person in question is legitimately innocent, the voters should know that, too.
Sad this is not getting many comments today. I thought for sure that this would raise the hackles of both Democrats and Republicans — especially Republicans since the two dabbling with this bill are Democrats.
I think this is kind of like a grand jury – no indictment then what goes on stays secret. In this case, no finding of ethics violations then no report needed. And innocence should be the assumption going in, so reports “vindicating” people aren’t necessary and would be waste of time and money to prepare.
Actually Ethics Commissions don’t work that way. They are Good Government oversight efforts whose work product ought to be available to the public they are supposed to be in existence to reassure. There is no real reassurance unless you can see the results of what they’ve done.
And Amen, nemski.
anononoe, how would we know what the Ethics committe is doing then? What if the Council stocked it with yes men — a distinct possibility in Delaware? Where would we be then?
Personally, I couldn’t top Scotts Dr. Strangelove reference so I have been pouting.
These guys give Democrats a bad name. And the fact that they STILL have not taken any steps to improve access to their proceedings makes me think that they could all (with maybe two exceptions) be taken out by a primary challenge.
nemski 2:52
It’s county government… we have very low expectations of that band of leppers.
Band of Lepers — love it. Seriously this gov’t body probably has more control over our lives than the federal gov’t. Their collective mediocrity is not an excuse for us not caring.
Nemski, Substitute “Grand Jury” in the place of Ethics Committee in your first sentence. Secrecy is there to protect the inncoent. And if it is stacked with “yes men,” then does it matter if they issue a report or not?
Cassandra_m: People should not need to be found innocent.
mediocrity, mendacity, criminality…
want to end a friednship? tell a friend he/she should run for county council. No one wants to spend their term in office telling their neighbors “No, I’m the smart, honest one… really!”
It is less about people being found innocent than it is about assurances that the business of the government is conducted with no conflicts of interests interfering. Making sure that the business of government is done within the defined ethical guidelines. That is what the Ethics Commission’s real job is. People who have COI issues or ethics difficulties get forwarded to the right places for some action. Those who are cleared are not. But at the end of the day, taxpayers should see what this Commission has been doing.
Well, I am going to assume that the membership is known and when and if they have had a meeting is known, so you can see who and what they are doing. If they meet and investigate and find that no ethical violation has occurred, then that should be it. No need to issue a report to say somebody was NOT violating ethics.
I would further argue that it is an invasion of the privacy of any private citizen that might be part of an investigation to have a publicly issued report about their activities if nothing unethical was found.
I believe that the members of the Commission are known, but I do not think that their meetings are open to the public.
You still want to know what they are finding, even if it is that everything is working as it should. Because then the person who made the ethics charges gets to repeat that X individual has issues — even if that person has been cleared.
And sometimes people are cleared who should not have been — like Paul Clark — who was cleared because of procedural issues, not necessarily because he was falsely charged.
I hope their meetings aren’t open!
There is no perfect answer here for every case. I just think that it should be like a Grand Jury and that a citizen’s right to privacy is more important than the public’s need to know personal or business information from an investigation when no ethical violation was found to have occurred.
The public needs to know that its government is operating in some ethical fashion. That is an absolute. Make the Ethics Commissions secret and you might as well abolish the entire business — because now you’ve given these pols the opportunity to spend alot of time figuring out what that envelope now looks like. As in how far can they get to the edge without being subject to public disclosure.
Frankly I wouldn’t mind the entire business being open to the public. But if the Commission decides that XX’s husband being an employee of a firm the county subcontracts to that XX has some supervision over isn’t a COI then I’d like to know so I can tell if there is a reason to challenge that.
Thanks for this, Cassandra. Great post. I’ve not paid much attention to politics lately, but it’s nice knowing you’re following this major-importante issue.
cassandra_m, maybe you wouldn’t mind have your life publicly investigated and put out for public commentary if you happen to be unfortunate enough to be dragged into a witch hunt of an ethics investigation as a witness, but I would not like to see that happen to you or anybody else.
Do you think Grand Jury proceedings should be public and/or have reports written exposing the testimony of all witnesses even when there is no indictment? It is the exact same issue here.
There should be ethics committees. They should investigate possible abuses. Innocence should be presumed. They should report when an abuse has been found. They should not report when no abuse has been found to occur and the privacy of citizens should be respected and maintained.
A1 must be someone in the inner circle of County politics. Anyone who would defend those assholes’ anti-transparent policies MUST be one of them.
That would explain why my bitch A1 has always had a stick up his ass when it comes to me. When I was critical of the County, I was absolutely SCATHING.
Love ya, A1! 😉
Hey A1 — the way to stay out of the way of an ethics investigation is to:
1. Not be employed by the government
2. Not be elected to government office
3. Stay away from government contracting
4. Not be married or related to anyone employed by the government
5. Not be married or related to anyone doing business with the government
Ethics Codes exist for a reason. COI rules exist for a reason. Financial Disclosure rules exist for a reason.
And someone needs to be able to take a good look at potential violations and assure the public that the rules and behavior they expect are in fact being adhered to. There is no assurance without reporting. None.
These commissions are nothing like a Grand Jury — which exists to assess if there is evidence enough for a trial. Ethics Commissions are a watchdog group and watchdogs don’t make any sense if they operate in secret.
You should forward that list to Paul Clark and Pam Scott, Cassandra!
Hey CM – you could be having an affair and meeting your lover at a restaurant when some kind of meeting goes on in the table next to you. Next thing you know, you and your lover are called as witnesses. Then it turns out that the meeting was perfectly innocent – but the government writes a report anyway revealing your secret life to world, destroying your marriage, and ultimately causing nuclear war and leaving the earth a burnt smoking cinder in space for eternity.
They should operate in secret unless their is evidence of an ethical violation.
They largely operate in secret now.
All I’m advocating for is the release of the report of the findings.
ps. That’s true Mike — and that list is probably not complete. Lots of people of COI and other professional ethical obligations that may cast a wide net.
Mike, mike, mike – you’re stalking me again. 🙂
I was commenting in this thread to get it going since nemski seemed sad and I thought it deserved a bit of contrariness. Besides, cm is always fun to chat with, as you know.
All I have been trying to do with you is help you set your moral compass. You know you’re like a son to me.
Thanks Cass, I missed this online the other day. I immediately recalled how this deadly duo tried this before in 2006. They had been investigated by the ethics commission but only slapped on the wrist for their lapses. But, oh my, we can’t have that, can we?
(By the way, no one here pointed out that this council appoints commissioners. The two holdouts of five…were they placed there by Clark?)
In 2006, Clark and Smiley approached that maven of academia, Stephanie McClellan. She provided for them a bunch of garble-gook in replacement of the elegant universal term “appearance of impropriety”. She told me that she wouldn’t vote for the bill and Chris Coons said he’d veto any bill that gutted the language of ‘appearance of impropriety’ from the county code.
Nope, Steph wasn’t honest with me. She did vote for gutting the code and I was told that she lobbied fellow councilmen to gut the code for the unethical slobs Clark and Smiley…who wouldn’t change their behavior but would change county code instead. SHAME.ON.MCCLELLAN.
Here, I found it: 4 VOTED YES Clark ,Smiley, Weiner and McClellan.
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=new+castle+county+stephanie+mcclellan+ethics+code&d=76448286265429&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=f1d351cd,65da8ce8
Bill/Resolution # O06136 – Defeated
Sponsor: SMILEY, GEORGE
Co-Sponsor(s):
Intro Date: 11/28/2006
Action Date: 01/09/2007
Restrictions:
Board Approval:
Dept. Approval:
Bill Title: TO AMEND NEW CASTLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 2, THE CODE OF ETHICS, REGARDING THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
Description: AMENDS EXISTING LAW IN SECTION 2.04.103(A) TO CLARIFY THAT OFFICIAL DECISIONS AND ACTIONS MUST BE FREE FROM BIAS OR PARTIALITY AND PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN COUNTY GOVERMENT. IMPOSES THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON OFFICIAL AND/OR EMPLOYEE CONDUCT.