|
|
Post by admin on Jan 12, 2009 8:24:55 GMT -5
The APP hit the nail on the head..... www.app.com/article/20090112/OPINION01/901120307/1001/NEWSFRONTMonmouth County's Democratic freeholders want to create an Office of Inspector General to help root out waste and corruption. Sorry, it's a bad idea. The position and accompanying support staff would likely end up being costly patronage appointments for work already handled by other agencies. The board's three Democrats, who constitute the first Democratic board majority in more than two decades, pushed the idea Thursday. The two Republican freeholders rightly opposed it. The office would duplicate existing services and likely result in new political appointees being hired at a time the county is considering layoffs of rank-and-file workers. The freeholders will continue the discussion Jan. 22. Any hint of corruption in county government should be reported to the county Prosecutor's Office or the state Attorney General's Office. And the fact entrenched, one-party rule in Monmouth County ended three years ago has helped provide the checks and balances needed to keep rampant corruption in check. Following Operation Bid Rig in 2005, when more than two dozen county and local officials were arrested, and most later convicted, on public corruption charges, the arrogance and lack of accountability that allowed illegal activity to flourish dissipated. Most of the old blood on the freeholder board and in the key administrative posts is gone. While we agree with the minority Republicans' position that an inspector general isn't needed, we disagree with Republican Freeholder Lillian Burry's sentiment that it's "personally offensive" to insinuate "county departments are riddled with fraud and waste." The images of public officials being led off in handcuffs, with most ultimately admitting to their crimes, haven't completely faded. But if the county has honest, vigilant freeholders from both parties, good administrators and competent accountants and auditors, there is no need for another layer of bureaucracy to combat betrayals of the public trust. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 12, 2009 8:53:55 GMT -5
I have an idea: let's all leave the divisive partisan philosophies aside and let these folks just do their jobs based on their own merits. Maybe then things will get done a little more expediently. oops! I guess the letter I am writing to the APP will stir a couple of things up. See my commentary in this thread... freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=freeholders&action=display&thread=4285Merits?! I for one do not appreciate being lied to by a candidate for office. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 12, 2009 11:51:32 GMT -5
The APP hit the nail on the head..... www.app.com/article/20090112/OPINION01/901120307/1001/NEWSFRONTMonmouth County's Democratic freeholders want to create an Office of Inspector General to help root out waste and corruption. Sorry, it's a bad idea. The position and accompanying support staff would likely end up being costly patronage appointments for work already handled by other agencies. The board's three Democrats, who constitute the first Democratic board majority in more than two decades, pushed the idea Thursday. The two Republican freeholders rightly opposed it. The office would duplicate existing services and likely result in new political appointees being hired at a time the county is considering layoffs of rank-and-file workers. The freeholders will continue the discussion Jan. 22. Any hint of corruption in county government should be reported to the county Prosecutor's Office or the state Attorney General's Office. And the fact entrenched, one-party rule in Monmouth County ended three years ago has helped provide the checks and balances needed to keep rampant corruption in check. Following Operation Bid Rig in 2005, when more than two dozen county and local officials were arrested, and most later convicted, on public corruption charges, the arrogance and lack of accountability that allowed illegal activity to flourish dissipated. Most of the old blood on the freeholder board and in the key administrative posts is gone. While we agree with the minority Republicans' position that an inspector general isn't needed, we disagree with Republican Freeholder Lillian Burry's sentiment that it's "personally offensive" to insinuate "county departments are riddled with fraud and waste." The images of public officials being led off in handcuffs, with most ultimately admitting to their crimes, haven't completely faded. But if the county has honest, vigilant freeholders from both parties, good administrators and competent accountants and auditors, there is no need for another layer of bureaucracy to combat betrayals of the public trust. The democrats are DEAD right on this issue. In fact, after all the years of one party rule, corruption, and patronage, and in light of the need to down-size government -- the office of an Inspector General would be quite timely. It can identify duplicative services, inefficiency, waste, and the like, and make appropriate, non-biased, recommendations for streamlining and reducing the size of government -- while increasing efficiency. The notion that a government must be corrupt to have one is silly. Many very good, lean, strong, governments have such an office. I applaud the County Democrats for pushing for this office. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 12, 2009 12:37:33 GMT -5
Rich,
I think this is one of those rare occasions when you and I disagree. On the surface the new position seems like a good idea. The timing is off by a mile. As the APP mentioned, there are checks and balances in place right now. I believe that considering that and the economic times, it would be wise for the Dems to wait on this subject.
Make no mistake, I voted for McMorrow twice and was glad she got in. We needed to see the one party rule broken, especially after operation Big Rig, which was mostly-thought not all- GOP backers who went down. One party rule like we had for so many years at the county level is never healthy. It opens the door for corruption and degrades public trust very easily. Those kinds of things have got to be guarded against.
Since the one party rule in the county was broken, we did see some nice improvements. Budgets were cut and taxes were put in check. Having a member of the opposing party up there did have the right effect. The County GOP has been scrambling to get their house back in order and regain some sort of credibility.
Again, going back to my other post, I sat there and watched and listened to the Dems sell the union membership what has turned out to be complete bull. They looked us in the eye and said the rank and file were not he problem or the issue. They looked us in the eye and said they would root out waste at the administration level.
Fast forward to now and what do we see? More administration being added, and threats against the rank and file. In my book this about face gives us every reason to call the Dems liars. In less than a week in power they have gone back on their word.
The other topic that has come up is patronage jobs. This was another good reason why the GOP got bounced. In such short time, the Dems have sent up many red flags. They would be very wise to reconsider their actions here. For the Dems to continue in power they will have to distance themselves from the state party as much as possible. Otherwise we are just getting what we voted out. In what is still a GOP county, the Dems will not retain power for long if they do not created that distance from the state party.
Is the inspector general and idea with merit? Absolutely. Now is just not the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 13, 2009 17:18:25 GMT -5
Rich, I think this is one of those rare occasions when you and I disagree. On the surface the new position seems like a good idea. The timing is off by a mile. As the APP mentioned, there are checks and balances in place right now. I believe that considering that and the economic times, it would be wise for the Dems to wait on this subject. Make no mistake, I voted for McMorrow twice and was glad she got in. We needed to see the one party rule broken, especially after operation Big Rig, which was mostly-thought not all- GOP backers who went down. One party rule like we had for so many years at the county level is never healthy. It opens the door for corruption and degrades public trust very easily. Those kinds of things have got to be guarded against. Since the one party rule in the county was broken, we did see some nice improvements. Budgets were cut and taxes were put in check. Having a member of the opposing party up there did have the right effect. The County GOP has been scrambling to get their house back in order and regain some sort of credibility. Again, going back to my other post, I sat there and watched and listened to the Dems sell the union membership what has turned out to be complete bull. They looked us in the eye and said the rank and file were not he problem or the issue. They looked us in the eye and said they would root out waste at the administration level. Fast forward to now and what do we see? More administration being added, and threats against the rank and file. In my book this about face gives us every reason to call the Dems liars. In less than a week in power they have gone back on their word. The other topic that has come up is patronage jobs. This was another good reason why the GOP got bounced. In such short time, the Dems have sent up many red flags. They would be very wise to reconsider their actions here. For the Dems to continue in power they will have to distance themselves from the state party as much as possible. Otherwise we are just getting what we voted out. In what is still a GOP county, the Dems will not retain power for long if they do not created that distance from the state party. Is the inspector general and idea with merit? Absolutely. Now is just not the time. As usual, you make some excellent points. I actually envisioned this job as an "independent Inspector General" who would be appointed for a set period of time. The IG would have a set budget, choose his or her own staff of professionals, and in that time period of 24-36 months, use the office and resources to make a full, comprehensive, report and series of recommendations to stream-line the County government, eliminate duplicative services, jobs, and departments. Such a sunset provision and independence might solve some of your concerns re: patronage and waste. I also share a concern about political payback and witch hunts. As I previously proposed -- and in fact wrote to several members of the County Board -- such an IG should be strong, tough, experienced, and independent in nature. He or she will be looking to rip through years of institutionalized patronage and inefficiency, sometimes at the political expense of still serving Freeholders. I made this exact recommendation to Ted Narozanick when he was still sitting as a Freeholder. |
|
