On this ethics panel thingy

A good point in the comments yesterday. Isn’t this a huge expansion of government?

After all, these “citizen ethics panels” are going to need staffs and support and office supplies, etc., etc., etc. And you and I both know we’re going to wind up with Poindexter types on these committees who refuse to be told “no” and will be presume themselves to be the First Citizens of each County more equal than all others.

What was it they said about the road to hell? Still, it sounds like a good idea, but for the details.

4 comments

  1. StevePerkins says:

    The article that you yourself just posted specifies that they’ll be using existing staff… so you’re worried about the expense of “office supplies, etc”. How many paper clips and Post-It Notes do you think it will take for legislators to be told that it’s a bad idea for them to have lobbyists throw them bachelor parties?

    This bill seems like an unqualified good idea to me… the only problem in the “details” is that the culture of the state legislature is currently pretty unethical, and MAY get hassled by this.

  2. eburke says:

    this bill does nothing to correct the problems at the General Assembly. It adds another department to every local government in Georgia. It will add more expense and employees to every city and county in the State. The question is “do we really have a need for this kind of ethics panel in every county?” If the answer is yes then we the taxpayers will have to be willing to pay more to have better government. If the question is no, then I don’t want my taxes raised because someone wants to address a particular problem with a statewide mandate.

  3. StevePerkins says:

    Someone please explain to me how this requires tax increases. From the sounds of things, the ethics committees will be made up of existing staff.

    My company (software development) started a code review program for quality assurance. Once in awhile, when a project is nearing completion, myself and a couple of other developers go to a meeting and look over the code. The company didn’t hire additional developers just to do this one once-in-awhile task. I can’t really say that our “office supply” expenses are noticeable either. You could MAYBE make the argument that you’re giving up an hour a month of my productive time, but I’d probably just be posting on Peach Pundit anyway (and would ANYONE like to make the argument that government employees are more busy and productive than I am?!?).

    Basically, I don’t see non-trivial costs here… so the only gripe I can come up with is that people like good-ol-boy corruption and don’t want to see the boat rocked.

  4. eburke says:

    someone has to pay for that one hour a month extra burden. I don’t like more government. I would rather deal with it with in the existing structures. When my City Councilman gets out of line, we will vote him out of office or force him to resign if he does something unethical in office. I don’t think that lobbyists are a bid problem for the citizens of Nahunta. Why should they have to devote staff time to deal with a non-issue. This will cost most small governments.
    I see problems with the General Assembly that need to be addressed but the requirement for each local government to add another bureaucracy when the need has not been demonstrated is just an unnecessary intrusion of the state on home rule and limited government.

Comments are closed.