By Barry Chalofsky
Recently the Center for Public Integrity, a national nonpartisan investigative news organization, rated all of the states on key indicators of transparency and accountability, looking not only at what the laws say, but also how well they are enforced or implemented.
The “indicators” are divided into 13 categories: public access to information, political financing, electoral oversight, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, state civil service management, procurement, internal auditing, lobbying disclosure, state pension fund management, and ethics enforcement agencies.
New Jersey’s score on this report was a “D,” which at first glance seems pretty bad.
However, after going through the findings I was dismayed to find that the highest score in the nation was Alaska, which only got a “C.” According to the CPI, “Only two other (states) earned better than a D+; 11 states received failing grades. The findings may be deflating to the two-thirds of Americans who, according to a recent poll, now look to the states for policy solutions as gridlock and partisanship have overtaken Washington, D.C.” This rating was a follow-up to a similar investigation in 2012.
New Jersey did score well in Budget Process and Internal Auditing, scoring a “B” in both, but also received “F” for Executive Accountability, Electoral Oversight, Public Access to Information, and Judicial Accountability. It also got a “D-” in Electoral Oversight Enforcement. I don’t know about you, but if I had brought home a report card like that I wouldn’t have been able to sit down for a week!
What does this say for state governance? As someone who dedicated most of my life to working for state government how does this make me and my fellow state government employees feel?
To be fair, what the public does not always understand is that there are really two “governments” — the politicians and their senior management appointees who are the face of government; and the career managers and employees who are the long-term providers of service. When we see corruption and lack of accountability it is usually with the politicians and appointees, simply because they are only there for a finite time and they are beholden to outside interests for their support.
Career employees, on the other hand, view their jobs in a more long-term manner. Most of them want to do a good job and earn a good living — and yes they want to retire with a pension. They are rarely presented with the opportunities for corruption, and even more rarely do they take them.
Because of Civil Service laws they are largely shielded from the political pressure that may be felt by higher level management. They also rarely interact with the media and are protected from retaliation by their unions. While this protection sometimes results in workers who are not as accountable, I am glad to say that the vast majority of government employees are highly motivated and truly care about their jobs. That is why you rarely see the negative press about the lower to mid-level state employees.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the politicians and political appointees. While many are honest and well-meaning, they know that their jobs are at the mercy of the Governor, the electorate, and the political system. They also know that their tenure is usually limited. Therefore, they are subject to significantly more pressure, and scrutiny, than their subordinates. This is true for all levels of government. Therefore, it is easier to understand, although not excuse, the poor marks given by the CPI.
The only real solution to this problem would be to limit the number of political appointees in government. This may sound easy, but it flies in the face of our political system who views these positions as a way to reward the party faithful, and as a means to effectuate changes to existing policy. It also makes it difficult to replace senior managers who don’t agree with the new administration.
Nevertheless, we should attempt to reverse the trends of recent years and try to minimize the number of political appointees. In addition, we need to reinforce internal and external transparency, as well as accountability. This is the goal of the CPI and should be the goal of our state’s citizens.
Barry Chalofsky heads a Lawrenceville-based consultancy specializing in environmental and land-use planning, and is an adjunct professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Rutgers. A former Department of Environmental Protection official, he currently serves on the board of directors of the Public Sector Managers Association. He can be reached at www.bchalofassociates.com. A version of this editorial previously appeared in the Times of Trenton.
