Ethics Code Unnecessary in Amherst?

A code of ethics? In Amherst County? You’ve got to be kidding. It would be way too intrusive and might even handcuff the members of the ruling body in the course of their handling the county’s affairs.

And so, after nearly six months of debate and hemming and hawing over an ethics code for the Board of Supervisors and the county’s boards and commissions, the supervisors have closed the debate. They decided last week there will be no ethics code.

How could the supervisors object to a document that set forth in its preamble the need to “assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation”?

The forced resignation of former County Administrator Rodney Taylor by a majority of the supervisors last April did everything to raise questions about public confidence in the board and its actions. That resignation prompted a furious debate over whether the board’s action was ethical or fair.

New Feature

Sign up for our newsletter e-mailed to you at 8 a.m. each day Monday through Friday.

Click here

 

To counter that debate and placate residents who were disappointed over Taylor’s dismissal, the supervisors asked County Attorney J. Vaden Hunt to draft a proposed code of ethics and civility for Amherst County government and its officials.

What Hunt came up with was a document asserting that good government and ethical behavior are goals that every county resident has the right to expect from the governing body and those who perform the necessary services that keep the county operating.

The proposed preamble covered it well when it said, in part, “The effective functioning of democratic government requires that public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws affecting the operations of government; that public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; ... and that public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.”

Eighteen sections followed that, most of them succinct one-paragraph statements all of which apply to good government — government that one would expect in any Virginia locality.

Two members of the board, Don Kidd and Chris Adams, objected to a section in the ethics proposal that requires board members to contact county staff through the county administrator or department heads. They said that went too far.

Did they try to amend it? Did they suggest that that section be eliminated?

No, they tossed the entire proposal on the scrap heap of bad government, adding to speculation that good government has become as elusive as ever in Amherst County.

Adams suggested that the ethics code was unnecessary when he said, “I don’t see this document is going to cause us to adhere to anything we don’t already adhere to.”

Supervisor Ray Vandall said he thought the ethics proposal went too far and covered too much of county government. “It goes a lot farther than I ever anticipated,” he said. “I thought this was a matter for the Board of Supervisors, not every part of the county.”

But good ethics don’t stop with the elected board. They should extend throughout county government.

In tossing out the proposed code of ethics, the supervisors have not put the questionable ethics involved in their dismissal of the former county administrator behind them. To their detriment, they have only prolonged the discussion further.