The Radical's Blog: Just Because It Is Legal ...

When it comes to my elected and appointed officials, I have high expectations. Maybe they are too unrealistic but nevertheless I expect them to be role models exhibiting leadership and governing with wisdom. Maybe this makes me naïve, but I believe that if the people of our town do not expect excellence from their elected officials, they will get mediocrity. 

During the public portion of the last two town council meetings, citizens raised the issue of conflicts of interest and ethics.  At the Aug. 22 meeting, Council President Glen Bianchini stated that he was “not an expert in ethics”. During the Sept. 12 meeting, I followed up that conversation for clarification. His answer was that he defers to our solicitor, Dave Carlamere, with respect to ethics. He gave the same answer when I repeated the question.

As a man who demands excellence from public servants, especially the Council President, I cannot accept this. To quote an old saying: Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right. There is hardly a week that passes without at least one article about a corrupt lawmaker. Certainly we cannot use the law as the measuring stick on ethics. Travel anywhere in the country and much of what passes as commonplace here is outlawed there. Where it is not outlawed, public servants do not need laws to tell them, for example, they can’t shake down municipal vendors for campaign contributions. In Gloucester Township this practice is celebrated by public officials and publicly defended by the mayor.

As a citizen of Gloucester Township, I expect council members—especially the Council President—to lead when it comes to ethics, not merely preside over a political machine as a caretaker until they name a road or park after him. My expectation is that when there are questionable calls to be made, the Council President should enforce a strong moral compass and not defer to what is legal, or what his party bosses want. 

The discussions these past two meetings were over alleged conflicts of interests involving the town Solicitor himself. Carlamere gets a lot of attention from watchdog groups because in his position, he has a lot of influence over this town. In addition to standards of ethics, Council defers to his legal opinions over pending legislation. He writes much of the ordinances they pass.

Unfortunately, in addition to being our town Solicitor, he is also an active member of the Gloucester Township Democrat Committee. His wife, head of GT’s Housing Authority, is a committee member at the county level. Should any of the challengers in the council election win a seat, will he give their legislation the same consideration he gives to his own party? If one of them brings up legislation that might have a negative effect to his party, will he be objective?  Can our town’s legal advisor, who is supposed to be impartial, be able to put his party aside? When he first became Solicitor or when he ran for committee, the Council President should have pulled him aside and told him he can be one or the other, but not both. Having both positions has created an ethical cloud over all of their heads. Just because he is allowed to have both positions, doesn’t make it right.

When the GT Democrats were looking for a replacement to run Sam Siler’s pay-to-play campaign finance laundering PAC when he became a council candidate, Council President Bianchini should have been the first and loudest voice to stand up and tell the party members that it is completely inappropriate to have the Solicitor’s wife take it over. But he did not. Now our Solicitor has another ethical conflict of interest. He now controls one-third of Council’s and Mayor Mayer’s re-election fund. If his performance starts to degrade, is Council going to fire the man who controls one of their re-election PACs? How can the biggest pay-to-player in our town give objective advice when it comes to reforms proposed in front of them? Just because there is no state statute barring him from controlling his boss’ re-election fund, doesn’t make it right. 

Pay-to-play reform was the topic of a workshop the first week of June.  At that meeting, the Council President directed the Solicitor to review and draft legislation “ASAP.”  That was almost four months ago and he has yet to report. What is he waiting for? Why didn’t he report back legislation to Council in a timely manner?  Was it because the proposed ordinance would strip his family of a lot of power, or because it would also strip his party of a lot of their local fundraising ability?

Because of his and Council's refusal to even vote on the ordinance we proposed, we are now collecting signatures to force them to move on the issue or let the people decide if they want it passed at an upcoming election. When we deliver the petitions to the clerk’s office in December, he will no doubt be reviewing them from a legal perspective. He has a clear and documented conflict of interest with this ordinance given his involvement with the party and his control over one of the pay-to-play PACs. From an ethical point of view, how can I expect fair treatment given his personal and party’s track record with respect to this ordinance and that passing this ordinance will strip his family of a lot of political power? 

Ethical government would keep him away from this ordinance because of his conflict of interest. Then again, ethical government would not have allowed their Solicitor to get in this situation in the first place. Leaders in good government do the moral thing, even when the immoral choice is legal. I am disappointed that our town's leadership chose what is convenient and what is technically legal over what is right. I expect better of them.