Transparency is a fundamental

Editorial, Leesburg Today

Having the inner workings of government clearly visible to county residents is a fundamental element of good leadership.

Public disclosure is a good defense against having the ethics of the local public officials in one of the country’s most affluent communities called into question on the front page of the nationally circulated metro daily. Conduct that attracts this type of attention is not the kind of behavior that maintains Triple-A bond ratings and it does not provide leverage when trying to convince the state legislature to provide more funding for local needs.

Whether the investment made by the Washington Post and the meticulous search of public records conducted by reporters Michael Laris and David S. Fallis pays long-term public benefits depends on a number of factors.

The public reaction to the stories highlighting the close personal ties of a small circle of the county’s political, development and business leaders needs to be treated as something more than a political “gotcha” by longtime critics of the board’s pro-growth majority. Over the long term, “gotchas” have a tendency to go both ways and don’t provide much public benefit.

The public concerns expressed in reaction to the reports include questions about whether their elected representatives have acted illegally. That is not a question that a reporter or a politician can answer. That is a process that begins with a law enforcement agency, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office or the state Attorney General. In Virginia, it takes an extreme case to violate the conflict of interest laws.

If this is the standard by which we measure the conduct of our government leaders, the bar is set too low.

The question of whether individuals are corrupt-exhibiting a perversion of integrity-is one that voters can decide. And from their point of view, the appearance of corruption is just as damaging as actual corruption.

The board has fueled the appearance of conflicts of interest by reducing, not strengthening, its public disclosure rules. Past boards and planning commissions had operated under codes of conduct aimed at ensuring that the public had an opportunity to know more about the behind-the-scenes negotiations that occur on a routine basis. Meetings with developers were regularly disclosed. Such a policy has been deemed unnecessary by this board, which has been slow to embrace a recent proposal to require more disclosure when a campaign donor was involved with an application or project up for its consideration. In most cases such information already is publicly available in election records, but the disclosure of these connections in concert with specific action provide the public with better information and shields supervisors from accusations of back-room dealing.

Supervisors should not back away from imposing new disclosure rules for fear they would be admitting wrongdoing in some form. Rather, this is an opportunity to focus on procedural changes that can help all supervisors build greater public trust. County Chairman Scott K. York and Supervisor Lori Waters might take the lead in that effort, but it will take the support of a majority to make the needed changes.

In moving forward from here, it is important to know that transparency can block charges of corruption while arrogance in government can fuel them.

Copyright  © 2007 Leesburg Today

(Created: Friday, January 26, 2007)