The voters spoke loud and clear last year with the passage of the ethics code for the County Commission.
With one Commissioner already sitting in the pokey, one under indictment and two others under a cloud there’s no doubt about the meaning of that particular election.
Same goes for the School Board with one member also in the pokey and another member under indictment.
The Board is working to adopt its own ethics code which probably won’t be much different from the County’s.
Leading the efforts to put such ethics codes in place were a majority of city officials throughout the county who had a need to get those slimy bastards on the County Commission and the School Board.
There’s only one problem.
Now it’s time for city officials to put their collective money where their mouths have been.
Uhhh… No soap.
The ethics requirements they cheered for are just a little too stringent when it comes to them.
Coconut Creek’s Lisa Aronson put a voice to the resistance.
Banning county commissioners from lobbying is one holier than thou issue.
Seems it’s good thing to bar county officials from representing clients in front of city officials, but somehow it’s not okay when it comes to city officials from doing the same thing.
The gift ban is another one of those.
It’s just “too strict” since city officials “don’t make the $90,000 plus” salaries that county commissioners do, “and some people even be offended if we were to turn down a bottle of water or offer to compensate them.”
Looks to me as though some city officials think they have a right to take those free meals and “bottles of water.”
Yeah, right. Do as I say, not as I do.
Time to pay the piper folks.
If it’s good for the county level, it’s good for cities as well.
There’s no difference in Sunshine laws between county and city officials, so why should there be any differences in ethics codes?
Could this be an example of the law of unintended consequences?
Yes, and it’s just too damned bad.
And Ms. Aronson, take note; “Resistance is futile.”