In recent weeks, I noticed that a County Council member was getting preferential treatment from ArtsQuest, a recipient of county funds. No matter how innocent the parties involved might be, it's very bad optics. We've seen that recently with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. We all hate to see public officials use their office to get personal favors. It undermines trust and confidence. This should be common sense, but if you're like me and lack that quality, there's the Northampton County's Home Rule Charter. It prohibits anyone who works for the county from accepting anything of value, on terms more favorable than those granted to the public, from any person dealing with the county. That should be the end of it. But guess what? This clear prohibition is contradicted by the Administrative Code. It contains ridiculous exceptions that include tickets to ball games and shows. Executive Lamont McClure has picked up on this discrepancy. Yesterday, he proposed a gift ban ordinance that is more or less in line with one imposed by Governor Josh Shapiro. It will require two County Council sponsors.
McClure noted that the Administrative Code's gift ban has so many loopholes "you could drive a truck through it."
County Council took no action yesterday, but will introduce this ordinance in two weeks if there are two sponsors. I'd hope that all nine would want this enacted.
It's in the best interests of the County.
3 comments:
So who would decide what is an isn't included? A judge, county council or a McClure appointee? Based on this Administrations track record, Council better have their solicitor go over this with a fine-tooth comb.
You mean the code that Shapiro instituted and then immediately violated?
This only works when politicians are reputable ethical. Unfortunately that standard is getting harder and harder to reach.
I have found that many politicians, even those I like, often accept little favors here and there. It's a form of soft corruption that ultimately leads to hard corruption. I agree that Shapiro failed to follow his own gift ban guidance, and that is what any gift ban enacted should have the force of law. The one proposed by McClure is an ordinance that would have the force of law. It is much like Shapiro's ban. It is not onerous. If someone wants to give you a bottle of water or buy someone coffee, he can. But the things that really turn people off will be banned. If you see a Council member at an Eagles game, he will have bought his own ticket. If you see someone on Council in the VIP section at ArtsQuest, she will have purchased her ticket.
Essentially, a gist ban stops soft corruption.
What is and is not included is right there in black and white. I will load the proposed ordinance when I get a copy. I agree it should be carefully reviewed and that all none members should support this. If they fail to do so, that says something about their own ethics.
Post a Comment