Put ethics in writing

Had Forest Gump’s mother been in local government, her sage advice may have been “ethics is as ethics does.”

In one respect it’s a little disappointing we need specific ethics guidelines to show our public employees and elected officials where that line is between what’s acceptable and what’s not. On the other hand, it’s a necessary precaution, one that governs the most rural official to the President of the United States debating the definition of the word “is.”

The Mat-Su Borough is no exception and we support our assembly’s efforts to establish and firm those guidelines here. One measure, which would have curtailed former borough employees from being hired as consultants for three years, is the latest to meet the veto pen of Mayor Talis Colberg.

Colberg’s argument is that the ordinance seemed aimed at one person — former borough manager John Duffy. Duffy resigned this summer after 10 years as manager and 24 with the borough. A move now to say former employees must wait to become paid consultants seemed more than coincidence, and we agree.

In fact, Assemblyman Mark Ewing was direct in saying there was no coincidence. He said his “yes” vote on the proposal was aimed at Duffy.

Policing ethics is always tricky, but there needs to be a baseline, a lowest common denominator. It’s sad that too often we see our public agencies and officials aspiring to meet these basic standards and not far exceed them. While it’s prudent and appropriate the borough have guidelines to prevent even the appearance of impropriety when hiring former staff to consult on projects, implementing specific ordinances aimed at one particular person is contrary to the spirit of maintaining the borough’s ethics.

In a memo outlining the veto, Colberg said he wants to allow a borough committee tasked with re-working ethics guidelines time to do its work. That group is considering a recommendation of a one-year moratorium instead of three. That’s all well and good, but while Ewing’s motivation for supporting a three-year hiatus is suspect, he makes a valid point that the committee has had plenty of time already.

“They’ve have two years to play with it,” he said. “They’ve done nothing.”

If Colberg believes the borough’s ethics committee is the right group to set and bring recommendations for assembly action, both he and the assembly need to light a fire under the group to speed up the process. If two years isn’t enough time, how long does the committee need? Six months? Another two years? Set a deadline. Give the group six weeks to outline a first draft of its proposals that have been in the works for years. Give the assembly something to work with.

Holding the committee more accountable to deliver some tangible, timely results is the prudent — the ethical — thing to do.