Ethics Schmethics!

It is interesting that the local newspapers are finally asking the Ethics question of our freeholders. In today’s Sunbeam, posted on the Cumberland County News website is an interesting article touching on the Ethics Panel that Bill Whelan and Reverend Dunkins are still dancing around. Dunkins goes so far as to say, “We’re not going to answer these questions quickly.”

Of course, Wheland and Dunkins were quick enough in 2009 when they amended the Code of Ethics for the sole purpose of allowing Lou Magazzu to to campaign for money for his failed NACo run. On February 26 Freeholder meeting, the second to last piece of business was to change the ethics rules. There was no debate whatsoever, and interestingly enough, those minutes were never approved by the Freeholder board, or so it says on the county website.

It has always been a favored tactic of the Magazzu administration to put questionable resolutions at the end of a very long meeting, in the hopes that the resolutions will not be scrutinized.

The purpose of the code of ethics is “to establish ethical standards of conduct for all officials, elected, appointed, as well as employees of Cumberland County…”

The changes were additions to the policy, beginning with  paragraph (h)

(h) Non-public, non-partisan office – Any position with a local, state, or federal non-profit organization including, but not limited to professional associations, that a county offficial or employee accepts campaign contributions for while a County official or employee.

Does that suspiciously sound like Lou double-dipping while campaigning for his job with NACo while pretending to serve the citizens of Cumberland County? This was an addition to the existing ethics code definitions.

Next, in section four, there is another addition (addition in underline):

excepting that nothing in this section shall preclude any Freeholder from accepting a lawful contribution to his/her campaign for elected public office or his/her campaign for elected non-public, non- partisan office including, but not limited to professional associations…

This major change to the county code of ethics went on with NO DEBATE, and did not take MONTHS to do. Now, Whelan and Dunkins claim that putting together an ethics panel to enforce the existing code is too onerous a job for them to do in an expeditious manner.

You see a classic case of misdirection, with Whelan and Dunkins claiming that they are worried about the scope of the ethics code, and legal repercussions. There was no concern about legal repercussion when they hired a new employee known to have a history of sexual harrassment.

The ethics committee is to be comprised of two freeholders, and three private citizens. Whelan is doing his best to drag his feet in performing the simple task of creating a non-partisan committee. It is NOT the job of the foxes to iron out the scope of the policy of protecting the hen house. NOW is the time to have a fully-formed committee to iron out the details. With the input of the three citizens sitting on the panel, more headway can be made. But as we all know, ethics is NOT a strong point of the sitting Democrats.

10 Responses to Ethics Schmethics!

  1. John says:

    Gloucester Township is the worst and there is absolutely no accountibility

  2. 2cents says:

    Do Whelan, Dunkins, and the CCDO get to pick the three civilians? Kind of like having a criminal defendant appoint their own prosecutor and judge. Actually, when you think about they’ve done that, too. That’s why they get away with all this stuff. It seems that the only purpose of the Code of Ethics is so they can say they have one.

  3. Wildwitch says:

    What “stuff” have they gotten away with? Just who has a history of sexual harassment?? Where is your proof on that claim? If you read the whole article it makes sense for them to take their time and do it correct. If the rushed to finish & something went wrong then you would be sitting there complaining. Once again another bash to the Dem’s on this non-partisan blog.

  4. Guess-Who says:

    U still _ _ _ _ _ _ _ & Moaning about this site ?

    Do U really believe that someone on here is going to take U seriously with ur RHETORIC that U have used & accused the Contributors that make the Contributions of INFORMATION to this Website.

    I don’t give a _ _ _ _ what U think about the Website, Getting the Facts out to the Public is all that matters 🙂

  5. Wildwitch says:

    Waaaa waaaa…guess who sounds like your suppressing a lot of hostility. Do you think anyone really takes this site seriously? Only little whacks like you.

  6. Guess-Who says:

    You’re = You are

  7. Guess-Who says:

    Now I’m a little Whack according to Wildwitch/Marcus, Day before yesterday I was Big, must of forgot the Word I said (POWERFUL) that best describes me.

  8. Wildwitch says:

    Oh No what to do what to do Kim Kardashian is getting divorced already and no Glee!!!! That’s okay because Nancy Grace is kicking butt on DWTS!!!

  9. Guess-Who says:

    Who gives a Flying _ _ _ _ about Kim or Nancy or G for that matter, save that _ _ _ _ for your GOSSIP BLOG that U seem to know about 🙂

    Do U have anything to say about the Election & the Fact that Jeff V.D. likes to WAFFLE on his Words.

    Here is some GOSSIP for U wildwitch/Marcus
    Is it True that Jeff V.D. buys his shirts 3 sizes to small ?
    Or does he buy them in the wrong dept ?

  10. Wildwitch says:

    Well I heard from three of my inside people that it’s 2 sizes…I’m waiting to confirmation but Willy in the men’s Dept had to run home and do is physics. If you meet me down by the lunchroom I’m sure well get all the info.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: