Is it something in the water? Or is it something they eat? What happens to citizens when elected to public office to cause them to lose good sense?

Some years ago, in a rare moment of clarity, the City Council set up the Ethics and Campaign Review Board. Wisely or not, the basic structure permitted each councilor to appoint one of the members, perhaps sort of a guardian angel against future challenges on any ethics or campaign charges.

By chance I was one of those picked to serve on this unremunerated board and did so for several years until my appointing councilor left the council. Suddenly, apparently, I became unqualified or unfit to hold that seat. Wrong party or wrong ethics?

During those several years the board did yeoman's work and in fact continued to fulfill quite ably the assigned and delineated tasks. It was a limited charter they were given but within those boundaries, the board performed with extreme care and respect for the law and the sensitivities of all persons and/or charges brought before it. One could argue that a broader charter might have served the city well but nevertheless it would be difficult to find fault with their exercise of the responsibilities delegated to them.

For whatever reason, and certainly it is not because of a lack of need or failure in performance, the current council voted to disband this board and to replace it with one appointed by the mayor with at least four lawyers and three lay persons. Lawyers can be helpful but certainly don't have a corner on ethics. Furthermore, does any serious person think that appointments solely by any mayor necessarily improves the objectivity or the diligence of the board? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all could appoint our own judges and juries to oversee our activities?

Both Fred Rowe, longtime stalwart leader of the past board, and Jim Harrington, state chair of Common Cause and frequent attendee at the hearings, have written excellent summaries of the dedicated work performed by this board, only limited in fact by the dictates of the board's charter. But is there any doubt that a watchdog of some sort, that a board of serious and dispassionate lay persons, could provide a useful function in support of the citizenry of any municipality?

When we step back in recent history and look at the charges that have been leveled at city councilors, at county commissioners, at members of the PRC, and even at various inhabitants of the Roundhouse, isn't it obvious that there are variable understandings of what is ethical behavior for public servants? Whether elected or employed, standards of operating principles seem to differ among those holding positions in government. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said "because that is where the money is." Has government become the banks of today, and if so doesn't the citizenry need protection?

I don't have a ready solution. An elected board would be subject to the same subversion as exists in all political activity. Incumbents are neither dispassionate nor pragmatic enough to select those who might sit in judgment of their behavior. It is also safe to expect that otherwise ethical and honorable members of the community could disagree about the ethics of different sets of practices and behavior. Even the challenge of drawing up rules and regulations would be a daunting task.

It would be very easy to conclude that the only way out of this dilemma is at the voting booth, where a candidate with a low ethics rating could easily be punished. But this works only with a well-informed voter pool (significant transparency) as well as a culture that prefers and demands a high level of ethics. I would only conclude by saying that we had a good board for many years and I wonder what turn of events led the council to dismiss them. It looks to me like a very parochial, detrimental, and dysfunctional decision.

Santa Fean Gregg Bemis is an industrialist/adventurer and a concerned senior citizen.