The Ethics Of Oregon’s Ethics Commission
Now, the commission has spoken, and Major Tom won’t face an inquiry over the two free courtside Blazers tickets he used. Fine, that’s not my concern. Rather, my concern is this.
Ron Bersin, executive director of the commission, declined to explain the decision. Bersin said he couldn’t comment because the panel’s debate took place in a closed-door meeting.
Or, here’s the way today’s Theo describes the same thing.
Potter said the ethics panel wrestled with [the] issue in Friday’s executive session, which is closed to the public.
The ethics commission didn’t issue a written decision, and Bersin declined to explain the commission’s reasoning, citing the closed meeting.
Someone care to explain to me how the notion of ethics in government is advanced by having a Government Standards and Practices Commission which meets behind closed doors and then refuses to disclose what discussion took place there?
Addendum: One additional quibble, because in today’s paper, Major Tom yet again tries out his canard that sitting in those seats was “akin to throwing out the opening ball to a home game for a baseball team”.
This, of course, is hogwash. Sitting in free courtside seats at an NBA game would be akin to sitting in free behind-the-dugout seats at an MLB game, regardless of whether or not it hapened to be a game at which the Major threw out the opening ball.
But it’s business-as-usual for the Major to think we’re too stupid to notice his comparisons are too stupid to withstand even the slightest scrutiny.