EDITORIAL: Enact local government ethics reforms

Among the unfinished business in the Kernan-Shepard report are two proposals aimed at preventing nepotism and a major conflict of interest in local government.

It might seem a no-brainer that a local government employee shouldn't serve on the governing board of that same unit of government. But this is very common in Indiana.

If that surprises you, perhaps you haven't been paying close attention to the names on the ballot.

There are so many examples in Lake and Porter counties that it would take too much space to list them all. Suffice it to say: This practice is commonplace.

It is also unethical, as it sets up a conflict of interest that compromises suitable representation on county councils, town board and city councils.

A firefighter, police officer, clerical worker or code enforcement officer serving on the governing board of that same unit of local government shouldn't make decisions that affect his or ehr department — or even all city employees. That's a conflict of interest.

But if the elected representative recuses himself or herself, the constituents are deprived of representation on that issue.

That's why state law must be changed to prevent this built-in conflict of interest.

Local government employees still would be able to hold elective office, just not for the same unit of local government.

Nor should any local government employee serve as a direct supervisor of a relative. Nepotism is unprofessional and bad government. No matter how the supervisor treats a relative, the question of favoritism can be raised.

Government is not meant to be a family business. Nor are the employees supposed to govern themselves.

House Bill 1005 and Senate Bill 170, which are nearly identical, are before the House and Senate. The bills address serious ethical lapses in Indiana government.

The Indiana General Assembly should enact these long-overdue reforms.