Levy should sign Suffolk ethics bills

Now that the Suffolk County Legislature has approved a top-to-bottom overhaul of the county's ethics rules, County Executive Steve Levy should sign the two bills that carry out this revision. There is one troubling provision of the legislation that needs to be redone, but on balance, it's time for a fresh start.

The county has altered its ethics provisions in the past. But this set of changes arises directly from a heated conflict between Levy and the legislature over his disclosure forms and over his relationship with the existing ethics commission. That fight is not over. District Attorney Thomas Spota's investigation of the commission is ongoing.

The major fight was over Levy's practice, starting in 2006, of filing the state disclosure form, rather than the county one. Levy said he had filed the state form because his role on the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission, an arm of the state, required him to, and that was enough. The legislature argued that the county form was more revealing and wanted him to file it, just as hundreds of county employees do. Last year, though he still insisted that the state form met all his legal requirements, Levy began filing the county form. One of the new bills makes the requirement to file the county form very clear in the future.

Meanwhile, Presiding Officer William Lindsay (D-Holbrook) last year established a special committee to look into the ethics commission, where some legislators felt Levy had too much influence. But this committee suspended its hearings at Spota's request, to clear the way for his investigation.

Now the legislature has overwhelmingly voted to make major changes. One bill would create a five-member board of ethics, to replace the three-member commission. The county executive would appoint two members, and the legislature's presiding officer, majority leader and minority leader would appoint one each -- all to be confirmed by the legislature. So far, so good. But the bill allows the legislature, by a two-thirds vote, to compel the committee to give it access to its documents. Legis. Thomas Barraga (R-West Islip) voted no, fearing that the potential confidentiality breach might dissuade public officials from seeking ethics board advice to begin with. Good point. The legislature should rethink that provision.

The other bill consolidates disclosure and ethics requirements into one section of the county code. Based on that, the new board would put out a plain-language guide, to be distributed to county employees, so they can understand the rules they'll be expected to follow.

Levy came to office promising a more ethical county government. So it would be tough for him to veto these bills. But he feels that the mere creation of a new board unfairly casts aspersions on the current one. So, if he can't bring himself to sign that bill, he should at least refrain from vetoing it and let it become law without his signature. Then we can begin to put this chapter of county history behind us. And the legislature, which argued that he had too much influence on the current commission, should not go too far in the opposite direction and micromanage the new one.

It's time, finally, to turn the ethics page in Suffolk.