Continuing Developments in the Pinelands Pipeline Ethics Decision
Pinelands Commission To Consider New MOA Policy
[Update below]
Friends just forwarded a superb article from the Ocean City Sentinel by reporter Eric Avedissian that deserves far more widespread reading than the Ocean City area.
Aveddissian gives a detailed blow by blow account of the Ethics Committee hearing, and includes great quotes from folks involved that indicate that he completely understands the issues – Please read the whole thing:
In a related matter, we just learned that the Pinelands Commission Policy & Implementation Committee will consider important related issues regarding the Commission’s policy and procedure for public involvement and Commission development of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) at their next meeting on January 30, 2015. (see agenda).
We urge folks to attend and participate in that important discussion to let the Commission know how you feel about using MOA’s to circumvent the standards of the Comprehensive Management Plan – particularly to reform the many egregious abuses revealed during the South Jersey Gas pipeline MOA debate.
So, because Avedissian’s coverage was so good and the quotes so on point, I excerpt a big piece as today’s post:
Wolfe said he was “frustrated” by the committee’s “failure to consider the essence” of the complaint
“We were never claiming that he (Fiocchi) had financial interests or financial benefits or any kind of quid pro quo interest in the matter. That was not our concern,” Wolfe said. “Our concern was that a political official used his legislative office to manufacture a false grass-roots campaign and to put political pressure on an independent commission.”
Wolfe said Fiocchi urged the Pinelands Commission “violate the law” by considering jobs, economic development and energy production with regards to the gas pipeline.
According to Wolfe, the Pineland’s Commission’s Comprehensive Management Plan does not include jobs, economic development or energy production in its criteria for decisions in the pinelands.
“He (Fiocchi) was asking them to do something that was flat-out illegal,” Wolfe said.
Wolfe said Fiocchi could have written a letter to the Pinelands Commission disagreeing with its interpretation of the forestry management standards while arguing for the pipeline.
“He (Fiocchi) is tainting a decision of an independent regulatory agency. The Pinelands Commission is obligated by law to make decisions based upon the standards that are adopted in the Comprehensive Management Plan,” Wolfe said.
Wolfe said even though South Jersey Gas is publicly committed to the gas pipeline, the Attorney General’s Office asserted there’s no longer an application pending before the Pinelands Commission.
“That’s news to us,” Wolfe said. “They’re (South Jersey Gas) publicly making statements that they’re proceeding with the project.”
Wolfe said the committee did not understand the difference between the pipeline application and the Memorandum of Agreement, a financial document with the Board of Public Utilities.
“They said because the Memorandum of Agreement is under legal challenge, that the application is dead. I just think they made a mistake. That was the rationale to say we don’t legally have what was called a contested case,” Wolfe said. “They created a strawman I believe was false and they used that to dismiss our case.”
[Update – getting good questions from readers, so, for the wonks and legal eagles out there, if you want a highly credible and well researched understanding, check out this Congressional Research Service Report:
Here are the relevant “moral obligations” and ethical standards Fiocchi violated:
“The Subcommittee concluded that it is ethically permissible to recommend specific action on an administrative agency matter, and even to argue “at length” for such result, as long as the matter is argued on its merits and the means used in the intervention are not themselves“inherently damaging” to the administrative process:
There are a number of ways in which the legislator may proceed in raising these matters. He may simply introduce the constituent and ask for fair consideration. If he wishes to be very correct, he will also state that he is asking for nothing more than fair consideration on the merits of the case. A second procedure is to vouch for the applicant in some way; this amounts to a recommendation for the constituent, although not necessarily of his request.The third step is to recommend that favorable action be taken on the matter at issue. This may be done indirectly as well as directly, and may be simply stated or argued at length with supporting data and explanations. It is this third procedure which gives rise to ethical problems.
Legislators have at least two moral obligations in these matters of reference. One is to make sure that they are seeking to push cases only on their merits. It is always possible to make sure that there is no personal economic interest which is involved. But it is more difficult for a legislator to draw the line between proper and improper personal interests which are essentially political in character. That is, a legislator who is seeking support in a pending election (and elections are always pending) may feel that the noble objective of reelecting a stout defender of the public interests may justify his guiding the hand of justice just a little in a relatively minor matter.
A second moral obligation is to make sure that the methods of intervening in administrative matters are not themselves so inherently damaging to the administrative process or to legislative-administrative relations that they offset any public benefit that might be gained from any such legislative pressure.293