Thinking It Through - Part I. Intro; Part II. Ethics Comm.

PART I

Let's start thinking it through on some of the articles Town Meeting Members in Fairhaven will face at the Annual Town Meeting. If some of this seems like deja vu, that is because it is.  Three of the articles on the 2/15/2012 warrant for the Special Town Meeting will reappear on the Annual Warrant in May.

That is a perfect place to start actually thinking it through.  Why would you submit articles both for a STM called specifically for dealing with those articles and resubmit those identical articles for May?  

The answer is pretty obvious isn't it.

Politics.

If you don't think you can get them passed at a STM, based on presently elected town meeting members, well there is an election coming up, which will require all 400+ Town Meeting Member positions to be filled.

So, if you lose in February, you have a chance to get your supporters elected in April, to vote on the articles again in May.

A strategic political move.  

The flaw: resubmitting the identical poorly drawn articles for May, won't accomplish anything.

Not to fear though, if the rumor mill is accurate, the wheels are spinning to figure out a way to try and salvage the articles.  Don't be too surprised to see more of the same, in newer "improved" versions for the special within the annual.

As an FYI for those unaware, the "three" articles are to establish term limits, amend the recall provisions and terminate the turbine contract.

I have previously offered thoughts on these articles, and while they still merit further discussion, I will leave that for a later time.  Right now, I want to address the ethics committee proposal.

PART II

There is an article submitted for the annual town meeting that seeks to establish Fairhaven's own ethics committee.  Apparently the state commission which oversees all levels of government is not sufficient protection.

There would be a three member committee, elected by the voters.  The committee would create a town code of ethics, to be approved by Town Meeting.

The committee would be empowered to investigate  any activities which appear to be unethical or illegal.  They can ask for the records of any town board that pertains to their inquiry.  If malfeasance is found by them then the "sanctions" kick in. 

Presumably this only applies to acts of a "Town Official".  Just what is a town official you might ask?  Does this mean elected and appointed committee/board members?  All town employees acting in their official capacity? 

A three member board elected by the voters.  In all seriousness, who in their right mind would even run for this position?  Think it through.  You are will be running for an office which you will be required to act at all times as investigator, prosecutor, judge and initial finder of fact.  

What person who possesses all the qualities needed to sit on a committee like that, to properly perform the roles of essentially police officer, prosecutor, judge and jury all rolled up into one, would willing assume such a position.

I submit to you no one would (no one who would possess all the necessary qualities that is).

Because if such a truly noble person existed, that person would have the wisdom to know that no one committee should be empowered to perform those multiple roles.

How does one investigate an issue, come to a conclusion that something has been done to warrant a determination by a committee, and then sits on that committee to make an impartial determination?

Where are the ethics, the fairness in that?

You best hope that whoever decides to run for such a position is extremely well versed in the law, state and federal.  One slip up in the "due process rights" or civil rights of an individual being investigated, and see the fallout that will occur.  

One or two lawsuits against the committee members will pretty quickly dry up the pool of candidates for that position (and no, as an elected official you do not have personal immunity from all acts).

More problematic, there was absolutely no thought given to detailing how these investigations need to be conducted, or the rights of the individual being investigated; and, just as problematic, how does this committee expects to operate without a budget.

The who, what, where and when, not to mention the nitty gritty about the how, is completely left out.  

At its most innocent, this article appears to have been developed by someone or some group thinking out loud about what they personally want in place, writing those thoughts down, and simply giving no further thought to the matter.  

At its worse, the article has all the makings of a "Star Chamber".

The sanctions to be imposed if, in the opinion of this committee some wrong has been done: They can go directly to town meeting and recommend: a call for censure, a vote of no confidence, or impeachment.

I will ignore just how problematic the concept of going "immediately" to Town Meeting would be.

Also since there is a separate impeachment article which deserves much more attention then can be given here, I will do a separate post on that remedy.  Suffice it to say, again, it appears clear no real thought was given to the "remedies".

Is town meeting going to be willing to impose either of the two non-impeachment sanctions without providing the "accused" a proper adjudicatory hearing before it?   Perhaps we a hold congressional style hearing, rather than an adjudicatory hearing.  Or do we just let the committee put forth its findings and give the "defendant" some limited time to respond?

The third type of "hearing" before TM certainly wouldn't lend itself to anything remotely fair.  The first two types of hearings would mean separate town meeting sessions devoted to approving the committees findings.  Why?  To make sure they are right?  Isn't that what they would be elected for?

Censure is an act issued by a "body" against one of its members.  The "body" determines its member has done something wrong and it should be pointed out that the member's conduct is not in conformance with the "body's" sensibilities or rules.

There is no justification for Town Meeting to be issuing a censure against anyone other than a Town Meeting Member (and probably doesn't even have the ability to do so). 

A vote of no confidence.  You really want to go through this process to tell someone you don't approve of them, hey be my guest.  Except I have serious doubts you could do that with everyone that you probably mean to include in "town official".

Just why do we in Fairhaven need our own three person ethics committee?  I would like to see what code of ethics such a committee would adopt which would somehow eclipse the present, and apparently defective, ethics laws which exist.  

There are detailed laws and regulations on ethical and illegal conduct in place.  Making complaints is not a difficult process. Both the attorney general's office and state ethics commission handle the matters this proposed committee would deal with. They are investigated and are in fact acted upon when warranted.

And therein lies the problem I think for the proponents of this article.

The complaints of unethical  and illegal conduct I have been hearing just are not so; and, I think the people making them know that.

Their solution, change the rules, the process, so the complaints can be ruled that way.

For something presumably being proposed to remedy ethical problems, this article itself presents numerous ethical issues.  

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when one of them is as wrong as this.

You want to see abuses in town government, let this article pass and be put into practice.

Admittedly not a likely proposition, because even if passed it is completely unworkable, not enforceable, and in my opinion is in conflict with so many existing laws and regulations it will not withstand review.

This article is so poorly written, so ill conceived, and sadly so "transparent" as to motive that it speaks volumes about the fact we truly are not being asked to address what is wrong with town government.