Leave it to a bunch of politicians to find a way to water down a reform so that it doesn’t apply to them, only to those who will eventually replace them. That’s what has happened to a proposed ban on dual office-holding, which will grandfather in current members of the state Legislature and only apply to new members or those who seek a different office (an Assembly member running for Senate, for instance).
The grandfather clause may have been necessary to garner enough votes (doubtful, but for the sake of argument we’ll allow this to go uncontested), but it certainly was not the right way to go about cleaning up government.
State Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield) wants to change that. Kean, who lost a bruising U.S. Senate race to Robert Menendez, told the Jersey City Reporter that dual office-holding is an “‘absolute conflict of obligations’ that gives certain politicians too much power.”
There are 18 members of the state Legislature who currently hold another elected position — or 15 percent. This does not include the handful of others who serve as school superintendents and in other similar positions. This raises questions about whom they serve first — exactly the point that Kean is trying to make.
David Rebovich, managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics, describes Kean’s arguments this eay on PoliticsNJ:
Kean is interested in consistency, claiming that if the practice is wrong as most legislators apparently believe — after all, they do want to ban it for others — then there is no justification for grandfathering people in except political expediency and favoritism.
Beyond consistency, Kean makes several other arguments for getting rid of the practice. He believes dual office-holding leads to higher property taxes. This is a tricky point. Local officials who are also legislators will fight for more state aid for their communities and school districts. But presumably they will also tolerate more bureaucracy and public employees at the local level because they are part of the establishment there. Kean also notes that dual office-holding concentrates political power among fewer politicians which gives them a large power base from which they can thwart discussions for reform and changes in various policies.
In addition, Kean claims that holding a local and a state office creates conflicts of interest. For example, state legislators may not support policies that are good for the entire state, but not for the local political establishment, because such support may jeopardize reelection to their local office. As such, the system of checks and balances between levels of government can be compromised by dual office-holders. Will mayors who are also legislators support plans for municipal consolidation or merger
that may save taxpayers some money but cost themselves and their political allies their local government posts? Will they empower a state comptroller or other officials to flesh out wasteful and perhaps illegal spending in municipal governments or schools, or will they try to protect these jurisdictions from such scrutiny?On these terms, the advocacy role played by legislators who are also local officials may undermine the ability of state government to exercise its constitutional authority over substate jurisdictions and to root out inefficient and ineffective policies and programs. Lastly, Kean complains that dual office-holding limits the number of people who can serve in government and its representative quality by making it harder for women and minorities too gain office. More people and different types of people in government typically mean more views expressed and perhaps a livelier, more productive dialogue about policy issues.
I’ve been rather critical of young Kean, especially for the manner in which he attacked Menendez during the campaign, helping to drag an already ugly race deeper into the gutter. But his proposal — that dual office-holders be forced to relinquish one of their elected posts in January 2008 — makes sense. I would strengthen it a bit further, though, disqualifying anyone who holds a management-level public job (school superintendent or assistant superintendent, township manager, sewer authority director, etc.) from holding a legislative office (and a county office in the county in which they work).
It’s time to make them choose.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 