Letter to Editor: Ethics Board Is Key to Transparent Government

To the Editor:

By now most of you have already made up your mind as to whether our local Ethics Commission should be retained or disbanded.  There are good arguments on either side.  I doubt I can change anyone’s opinion.  But before I watch it sink into oblivion I want to tell you why I think it’s important to keep it. 

On first reading the ordinance to abolish the Ethics Commission was passed.  The Mayor was asked for his input.  He didn’t address the Ethics Commission as much as he addressed lawsuits and settlements.  His position is that it is more cost effective to settle than go to trial.  Those lawyers will bleed you dry.  I can appreciate the rationale of that argument.  And there might be times when it is better to settle.  But I’m concerned with where that rationale leads. 

The problem with that approach is that it will only encourage more lawsuits and settlements.  It’s like hanging out a “Sue Me” sign on City Hall.  Councilman DeVlieger I think recognized that.  His comment was that there are times when you have to fight.  I agree.  It’s too darned lucrative (and easy) to sue the City.  One person sues and receives a settlement and it isn’t long before others sue looking for a settlement.  Before you know it all kinds of people have dunes blocking their view.

What concerns me the most is the lawsuits brought by city employees.  Those lawsuits are settled too.  What is needed is a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the problem and correct it.  And it must be made clear to city employees that if they act unethically they will be disciplined, if not terminated.  Paying people off is not the solution.  Brushing it under the rug is not the solution.  That approach only perpetuates the problem.

Unethical behavior by city employees should be handled internally.  It should never get to the point of a lawsuit and a settlement.  Clearly that is where we’re failing.  The administration states it has overhauled its internal procedures to address the problem.  Time will tell if it will have the desired effect.  But I find it difficult to see where much of anything has changed when it is announced that the intention of the administration is to settle those suits.  There is little accountability in a settlement.

What we have are two disparate approaches to dealing with ethical violations by city officials or employees.  One is to settle them (the preferred method of this administration.)  The other method is to investigate them.  That is what the Ethics Commission is here to do; to investigate.  So this really isn’t just about the Ethics Commission.  It’s about how we’re going to deal with ethical violations going forward.  Will we settle or will we investigate? 

If you want to assess the relative cost of having an Ethics Commission you also have to consider the cost of the alternative.  How much money has the Ethics Commission spent to investigate and prosecute?  How much money has the City spent to settle?  Councilman Guinosso stated that the City is now approaching a million dollars in settlements.  The Ethics Commission was budgeted for $20,000 a year.  The case that went to appeal cost another $23,000 before it was vacated.  Over the duration of its existence the Ethics Commission has cost the City around $15,000 a year.  Even with the cost to adjudicate that’s still far less than what the City typically spends on just one settlement. 

It is because we have an Ethics Commission that the recent case was investigated.  Had it not been for that investigation how much do you think we’d know about the case?  With an investigation information gets out.  Disclosure happens.  I can’t help but wonder if that’s why the City wants to abolish the Ethics Commission.  I don’t think it’s as much about money as it is about control.  The ironic thing about it is that had it done nothing I doubt anyone would be bothered about the $20,000 a year it cost to keep it. 

I can’t discuss the case that was before the Ethics Commission since it was vacated.  Legally none of it ever happened.  Look into it for yourself and form your own conclusions.  There was a procedural deficiency in the case.  Some people would like to hang that on the Ethics Commission.  All that means to me is that it did not receive adequate legal counsel.  And you can’t prosecute a case where no one is able or willing to testify.  There were settlements that preventing key witnesses from discussing the case, and a work environment in which people (apparently) were afraid to testify out of fear of reprisal.  I don’t fault our local Ethics Commission for having to vacate the case.

Some say our local board is redundant and that there’s a state agency (the Local Finance Board) that does the same thing.  That it’s more cost effective to use it.  They would tell you that our local board only gets itself involved in lawsuits and litigation expense.  But bear in mind that it was the state board that kicked the case into Administrative Court.  It was the state board that was responsible for the litigation expense.  And I don’t equate local citizen over site with a state agency in Trenton made up of state employees.  It is not the same thing.  Then Councilman Wagner spoke to the state (Local Finance) board and reported that their advice was to keep our local board.

What seems critical to me is the approach that will be taken to future ethical violations.  Will violations be investigated?  Will there be accountability?  Will there be transparency?  Or will ethical violations be quietly settled in the night. Do you want a transparent and ethical local government?  That is the issue here and what I believe is at stake.

Eric Sauder
Ocean City