Setting record straight on ethics

In these days when people can express their opinion instantly, whether or not they know anything, you’d think that a little fact-checking wouldn’t hurt. Last month, an untrue statement attributed to a borough assembly member went unchecked, unchallenged and then became enlarged in an Aug. 1 editorial ( “Put ethics in writing”). Lest some people believe the evolving fiction is fact, please allow me to set the record straight.

The Frontiersman first reported on a failed attempt to override borough Mayor Talis Colberg’s veto of an ethics ordinance introduced in June. One reason given by the mayor was upcoming consideration of an extensive Ethics Board code rewrite. Assembly member Mark Ewing, one of two who voted to overturn the mayor’s veto, reportedly said, “The board of ethics — they’ve had two years to play with it; they’ve done nothing.”

Done nothing? One might have hoped for a follow-up question to Ewing, but that didn’t happen. There was time to check with someone who might know about what was actually going on, such as the borough clerk, Ethics Board members or even the borough attorney. That didn’t happen. Then the editorial used the remark as fodder to prod the Ethics Board into action — as if “done nothing” was true.

In actual fact, the Ethics Board held dozens of public meetings over the past three years to comprehensively examine and rewrite the borough ethics code. Hundreds of volunteer hours, with critical assistance from the clerk and borough attorney, created a large public record reflecting analysis, investigation, consideration of ethics concepts and figuring out how to make the ethics process work in a legally sound way that preserves everyone’s rights. The Ethics Board sent a progress report to the mayor and assembly on Dec. 14, 2009, estimating work would conclude in spring 2010.

The Ethics Board finished its rewrite in May and sent it to the clerk’s office, all prior to the introduction of the vetoed ethics ordinance that was introduced by assembly member Jim Colver in June.

Also in June, the clerk prepared a required nformational memorandum for the Ethics Board code rewrite for the borough attorney’s review and background information for the assembly. While it’s possible the Ethics Board might briefly review the attorney’s findings, the rewrite could go directly to the assembly. Either way, the public will soon have additional opportunity to comment as the assembly considers it.

The editorial chided, “Holding the [ethics] committee more accountable to deliver some tangible, timely results is the prudent — the ethical — thing to do.”

In actuality, the Ethics Board already did that. Equally prudent and ethical would be asking follow-up questions, asking secondary sources and checking facts with those who know. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, we would all be better off if the opinions were informed first.

Ethics is serious business involving people’s reputations and preservation of their rights. I want to thank everyone involved with this in-depth effort. It takes time to thoroughly consider the complex issues of education, process, fairness and investigation of ethics.

This is my personal opinion and does not seek to represent the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Ethics or its members.

Jim Sykes is chairman of the Matanuska-Susitna Board of Ethics.