Assembly faces opportunity

to set standard

It has been months since allegations of ethical improprieties jarred borough government, when the shadow of suspicion fell across two members of the borough assembly for separate cases of alleged misuse of their positions.

While the dust has settled in neither case to date, the official silence on the matter has been puzzling. Despite the timing, shortly before a new borough mayor and three new assembly members will be chosen, the issue of ethics in general barely has resonated with seated officials or those who seek to replace them. The topic has been part of recent candidate forums, but no one has stepped up and made the issue a centerpiece of their campaign.

We understand that ethics code reform lacks the heavy-hitting appeal of property tax relief and Hatcher Pass development. But it is no less important.

People need to know that those who represent them conduct themselves in a manner that defers always to transparency and accountability. They need to know where conflicts of interest may arise. They need to know that that no one is exploiting their elected position for personal gain.

The borough's Board of Ethics is considering a still-confidential complaint that followed the disclosure of the two alleged ethics lapses. But substantive official dialogue and action - of the kind that could bring needed revision to ethics laws - has been conspicuously absent.

That all changed at last week's borough assembly meeting, when Mary Kvalheim introduced a package of proposals designed to codify protection of so-called whistle-blowers and clarify existing laws governing campaigning. Her proposal was met with more questions than answers, but the questions raised should help strengthen the final product.

While it may be tempting to be skeptical about the process when questions about a conceptually good proposal begin to sound like semantic hair-splitting, we recognize the concepts involved are nuanced, and choosing the right words is important.

In this regard, the assembly is faced with a golden opportunity. Members can replace the needlessly vague and toothless ethics laws with revised ones that are the model for civic governments everywhere.

Through a careful, caring, deliberative process, conflicts of interest can be clearly defined, and rational campaign behavior can be outlined. It's time to close the loopholes that allow someone to say they have broken no laws, even though reasonable people recognize self-serving or exploitative conduct.

The assembly is scheduled to revisit Kvalheim's proposal again in October, after the municipal election. In the meantime, Kvalheim says she will rework the proposal based on the feedback she got last week.

People want responsive, trustworthy government. Kvalheim's proposal is a giant step in the right direction. We applaud the assembly for taking it seriously, and look forward to the second round of discussion.