Don’t disband the ethics commission

Last Updated on Friday, 03 February 2012 14:18 Written by Opinion Monday, 06 February 2012 00:00

To the editor:

Alright, let me see if I got this right. Some of what I’m about to relate, I didn’t confirm for myself, but I have the utmost confidence in the source. If I do get something wrong, I apologize in advance. This is how I understand it:

The head of the beach patrol, Tom Mullineaux, was found by the ethics commission to have falsified qualification exam records for himself (so I heard) and a relative of then-Fire Chief Joseph Foglio (now retired). There may have been others, I don’t know. The beach patrol (if you didn’t already know) is under the fire department. Another member of the beach patrol, Mike Hamilton (who I believe was the whistle blower) received a $50,000 settlement from the city, the terms of which prevented him from commenting further on the case. It has now been revealed by Ed Price that since being found by the ethics commission to have falsified records, Mullineaux (who is still working for the city in the same capacity) received a 50 percent pay increase that was made retroactive to 2010.

A complaint was filed with the local ethics commission, which made its determination. On appeal, the case was sent to the state Local Finance Board in Trenton (the terms are confusing I admit). That board apparently found the case had merit and advanced it to an administrative law judge. The local ethics commission asked for funds to defend the case. There is some confusion as to the amount it asked for, but it has been reported as being either $15,000 or $22,000.

City government balked at this expenditure (or was it the investigation?) and refused to finance the local ethics commission or reappoint its members. It is now in the process of disbanding the commission. It was stated that the case, now in administrative court, will go forward, but it will not be defended by the ethics commission. The city now has control over it. Being that it has already done everything in its power to bury the case (along with the ethics commission) and prevent further disclosure, what do you think will be the result? I can only assume that the case will be settled by the city before it goes to trial. Point to the city.

While all of this was happening, City Council was throwing due process to the wind and usurping its own Planning Board by attempting to rezone commercial properties for residential development. Certainly, they will state that that wasn’t the intent, but that is none-the-less the result. The justification that was used for doing so was even more problematic.

It was revealed that the fire department bilked the city for bogus overtime. Payments were made by the city to a substitute public defender that should have been made by the public defender. The public defender himself made contributions to the campaign of the former mayor (a clear violation of the Pay to Play law). It was argued that he’s “a nice guy” and probably didn’t realize that what he was doing was illegal. That may be, and I don’t have a bone to pick with the public defender. But, it leads to only two possible conclusions: one, that he knowingly broke the law, or two, he didn’t know the law, neither of which speaks well of his qualifications for public defender. Whichever the case may be, it didn’t deter council from appointing him. These are just a few of the things we actually know about.

So what are we to conclude from all of this? That we don’t have an ethics problem here in Ocean City? That we don’t have a need for a local ethics commission? That the administration has it all under control? That there are adequate policies and procedures in place that will either deter or effectively deal with unethical behavior? When was this city not being sued for something?

Councilman Keith Hartzell (and you have to give the man credit for the effort) investigated the state Local Finance Board as an alternative to our local ethics commission. He was told by members of the state board that they are responsive to citizen complaints, and are “doing a great job.” That has now become the official assessment of the administration and City Council, and has been given as one more reason for disbanding our local ethics commission. The only problem with that assessment is that the citizens who attempted to actually file a claim with the state board were left with a vastly different impression. Those people found our local ethics commission to be much more “responsive,” “competent” and “professional” to a person and want to retain it. If you look at it by the numbers, the state Local Finance Board doesn’t have such a great track record. It’s nice that it thinks it’s doing a good job, but it would be even nicer to hear that from someone other than the state board.

Rationale for disbanding the local ethics commission has changed over time, but the basic gist of it is that disbanding the local commission will “save taxpayer money” and that it is “a duplication of effort” since we already have a state board “that does the same thing.” In answer to the first, how much money did the city pay out in settlements over the past four years (the life of the commission)? Off all the lawsuits the city was subjected to during that time, how many originated in the ethics commission? The answer is one.

Compare the expenditures between the two. What has been spent on the local ethics commission is a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent on settlements and lawsuits that did not originate with the commission. So will disbanding the ethics commission “save taxpayer money” and “stop the bleeding” as has been maintained?

Let’s look at the current (and apparently last) case before the ethics commission. There was $50,000 paid to Hamilton. How much (in total) to Mullineaux is more difficult to determine, but the fact remains that he too was rewarded for keeping his mouth shut (with a substantial raise). In light of the money already spent to settle the case, I suppose it would be a duplication of effort to now spend money to adjudicate. This administration has already made a substantial investment in preventing further disclosure. Far from saving taxpayer dollars, the cost of settling the case appears to have significantly exceeded the anticipated cost to adjudicate it. You can’t argue that it “saved taxpayer dollars” to do it that way. The opposite appears to be true. Clearly there must have been some other consideration. What exactly is going on here?

The administration seems perplexed that it can’t stop unethical behavior and all of these lawsuits. But where individuals are rewarded for unethical behavior, where is the deterrent? Trying harder to do the wrong thing doesn’t seem to be the answer. So what is the answer?

This city was subjected to lawsuits long before the ethics commission was created, and it is likely to be subjected to lawsuits long after it is gone. That is not the fault of the local ethics commission. Although its actions could put the city at risk of litigation expenses, it’s not like the city isn’t subject to them already. It was stated that the local ethics commission is just “one more avenue for suiting the city.” But it is by no means the only one. Doesn’t it follow that if the local ethics commission is disbanded, that some other avenue won’t be used?

I see a real need for our local ethics commission. Unlike the state board, it is made up of local citizens who are intimately involved in this community. Your opinion may differ, but the fact remains that our local commission is there for you. It represents you, the citizens of this town, and it represents you, the employees of municipal government. It gives both the opportunity to be fairly heard and represented. To lose the local ethics commission is to lose what little oversight we have over our government, and the ability to hold our elected officials accountable (at all levels).

Before another claim is settled at even greater cost to the taxpayer with what amounts to so many payoffs and gag orders, I’d like to see a case investigated. I’d like to know who’s really responsible for what’s going on. Wouldn’t you?

Eric Sauder

Ocean City