No truth, no justice

The case of the disparity in pay raises for Bethel justices Howard Block and Kevin Rhyne may seem trivial at first glance, but we believe it raises some important questions about the workings of democracy—or the lack thereof—in local government.

As reported in the article “Justice for the justice?” in our December 17 issue, for two years in a row the Bethel Town Board has granted Kevin Rhyne, one of the two town judges, a raise while keeping the salary of the other, Howard Block, the same. When asked to justify their decision to the public, they decline to answer.

As we have noted more than once, the functioning of democracy depends on more than just holding elections; citizen balloting has to be based on complete and accurate information, or it will result in a dysfunctional government. The more transparency in government, the better the democracy.

It’s true that New York State’s Open Meeting Laws say that there are certain matters, personnel matters among them, that may be kept from the public in executive session. But, as noted by an expert on open meeting laws quoted in our article, that doesn’t mean that there is anything to prevent town officials from commenting on such matters if they choose. And in this case, we think it’s absolutely essential.

Remember that Bethel town justices are elected. It is, in effect, the voters who hire them, and it is the voters to whom they are therefore accountable. By granting the justices different pay, members of the town board are essentially making the judges accountable to the board—and without giving the public, the judges’ true bosses, any explanation.

By electing Howard Block, voters have delivered their judgment on him; it’s not clear that the board has any business stepping in with its own judgment. In fact, by indicating a preference for one justice over the other, it could be argued that they are trying to do an end-run on the will of the people.

Not surprisingly, the silence of the town officials has left a vacuum in which speculation and allegation can take hold. As reported in the article cited above, Gary and Joan Marie Rohrs wrote a letter about the issue of the judges’ pay to the town board. The letter alleges that a town official told the Rohrs that one reason for the pay differential is that Block generates less fine revenue than Rhyne.

If this were true, it would mean that the town has in effect established an incentive system for judges to impose fines. And in any system in which there are financial incentives for making one finding rather than another, you have introduced a bias that makes a travesty of justice. How would you like to have a hearing before a judge who knew that finding you guilty would mean more money in his or her pocket? Even a fair-minded person might have trouble being impartial under such circumstances.

Of course, town officials have not admitted that the above rationale is truly their reason for creating a pay differential. But because they won’t go public with their reason, they have left the door open to this kind of speculation, and the attendant lack of public trust that it creates.

If the people are not satisfied with Block’s performance, they can always vote him out next time. He is up for re-election in 2011. Meanwhile, there is no reason he should receive different compensation than Rhyne, who was elected to an identical position. We can’t imagine any reason that could warrant any other policy on the part of the Bethel Town Board.

The fact that we can’t imagine such a reason doesn’t mean we can’t be persuaded that there is one. But silence is certainly not going to get the job done. And if the public winds up not buying the reason—well, that can be corrected in an election, as well. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.

Also in this issue:

• There’s a better way

Dr. Punnybone

Bipolar Disorder