Bid process reveals need for new rules

Through the course of American history, countless books and essays have been penned extolling the virtues of democracy. High praise has been heaped in volumes on our manner of governing ourselves and the fundamentals on which the founding fathers built this nation.

All lofty ideals aside, an honest assessment of American democracy cannot be undertaken without considering the notion of &#8220enlightened self-interest.” As difficult as it may be, intuitively, to imagine any brand of self interest as constructive to a larger good, early socio-cultural philosophers laid out an enduring defense of it.

James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, whose collection of 18th century essays became the &#8220Federalist Papers,” touted such self interest in making the case for ratification of the Constitution. They defended enlightened self-interest as a necessary means of motivating individuals to work together for the common good.

In a later work, 19th century commentator Alexis de Tocqueville made the concept central to his &#8220Democracy in America.”

&#8220Americans,” he wrote, &#8220are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other, and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state.”

Sadly, the farther we progress historically from the birth of this country, the more examples can be found of public officials who have abused the notion of enlightened self interest. Through single-minded pursuit of individual gain, often fueled by greed and arrogance, they have blurred the line between fair play and impropriety.

Perhaps unfairly, elected officials generally are held to a higher standard of behavior than is expected of the individuals who elected them. But this is a necessary disparity.

When we elect representatives to govern, we expect a certain level of integrity and unflagging respect for tenets of accountability and propriety. It is not always enough that elected officials simply stay within the bounds of the law.

After all, neither former attorney general Gregg Renkes nor former state Sen. Scott Ogan, both of whom resigned under public pressure for perceived improprieties, did nothing explicitly illegal.

So recent allegations that borough assembly member Jim Colver may have taken advantage of his position to gain an unfair advantage in procuring borough work for his surveying business are cause for concern. Although no laws appear to have been broken, that hardly means people don't have a right to raise an eyebrow at the mere whiff of impropriety in the borough's contract bidding process.

For this reason alone, Colver is right to have removed himself as a subcontractor on the career center project.

It is incumbent on the assembly as a whole now to elucidate a meaningful conflict-of-interest policy to keep a similar situation from arising again. The role played in such policy-formulation by Colver, the man who could be borough mayor, will go a long way in revealing his true intentions.