The Ethics Board is nothing more than window dressing that in reality, operates outside of the public purview. And now, it's adding to the tax burden. I realize that it's a difficult thing to do away with this type of "feel good" board; but a simple cost/benefit analysis will show that, even with the minimal costs associated with the group, the benefits don't add up. Let's eliminate this vestige of the Perillo regime.

It is paiinfully evident to me that we need an independent and empowered agecncy to oversee ethics in this town. If the current Ethics Board doesn't have the teeth, if it is as implied, window dressing, then get rid of it. But replace it with something that has teeth. Make it competent. Think of all the litigation in this city and how due process has so often been thrown to the wind. How so many decisions made by city government appear to primarily benefit special and self interests. Make it public. Too much happend here behind closed doors. What is the cost to Ocean CIty of not having effective oversite?

Boats. They are, perhaps, past their time for rescues, but there are lots of busy days when lifeguards guard from the ocean side of the crowd and not just from the beach. They can do that from a board, but the vantage point is better from a boat and a guard can stay out on the water longer when he/she is in a boat out of the water rather than on a board and wet. It's something else to consider.

I'm shocked that City Council balked at spending the insurance money on lifeboats. I thought the insurance money would have to go to replace the ruined lifeboats. The lifeboats have always been used primarily to prevent rescues (see Lifeguard Mark McElwee's comment above) not make rescues. The Ocean City Beach Patrol's number one priority is the PREVENTION of rescues.That being said, I can remember being involved in multi-person rescues where, without the lifeboat, people probably would have been lost.

The Ethics Board cannot "get more teeth". Its scope of duties and power are limited by the governing state statute. That is just one of many reasons why we should eliminate it.

The other main reasons are:

It is not cost-effective for the reasons Jim Houck provides.

Also, it is not cost-effective because of the potential huge costs of an incorrect decision, especially a finding of fault, Consider also that there may be a correct finding of fault for a relatively innocuous ethical lapse and the consequences of it on the accused's reputation would be huge. And - the decision is made by people who very well may not be qualified or otherwise equipped to deliberate justly.

When thinking about that, consider that the original Board was adjudicating ethics complaints for a year and a half and still had not clear idea of what came under their jurisdiction and what are the basic rules for processing the complaints. More specifically, they stated that if there is evidence of criminal action than they have to hand it off to law enforcement and at the same time they said that for them to process a compliant there had to be material gain (or prospect of it) for the accused (something of concrete value had to be the reward for the bad behavior). As you probably figured, if there were material gain then a crime was comitted, so the Board should not process that complaint either. I don't know if things have improved, but I doubt it. Is past time to dissolve this board.

Are they serious? Phasing out the lifeboats? PREVENTION folks! Busy days when they monitor from the ocean side. I hope someone goes to city council and reminds them of that issue. Do they ever go to the beach????

At $9000 a piece, why can't they replace the wood boats with inflatable zodiacs outfitted with a small outboard or jet ski's? I know the maintenance would be high but I'm sure the maintenance on the wood boats is also expensive.

Eric - I don't know if there is any outside mechanism to oversee ethical behavior by our government and elected officials other then law enforcment and citizen vigilance. Here, both are compromised by some combination of cheap politics, ineptitude, indifference, and reluctance to step up (and face ridicule, disdain, and even retaliation - it is OK not to want to deal with that, I think).
I think all we can do (those who have the stomach for it, that is) is to persevere. Be ever-watchful and always involved. Do the research, get the facts, know the rules, think clearly, make the case, be fair, and be persistant. That seems like a waste of time, but I've seen it prevail here in OC many times.

I've not seen any good come out of this Ethics Board - and that is an institutional criticism, not one of the individual members. It cannot work. As Jim Houck said, it is not cost effective - and that applies in a fiscal context and in the context of its goal of improving the government officials' ethical conduct.

Sam.

If the boats were insured, what is the problem? The money is for the boats, use it for the boats! Every piece of lifeguard equipment is essential to public safety. Mr. Hamilton should mind his own business and stop undermining the OCBP.

"It's a penny wise and a pound foolish" to prevent the Ethics Commission from obtaining competent Legal Counsel. Instead of strengthening the Ethics Commission Mr. Ping would rather destroy it.

The recent attempt to dismantle the Ethics Commission is an ominous sign.
Mr. Ping playing the lead role in this assault guises himself as the taxpayers' guardian.

What is $22,000 for hiring an independent attorney in relationship to the benefit of making elected officials and City employees think twice before committing a questionable action?

What price does Mr. Ping put on giving citizens confidence in the integrity of our Government?
What price does he place for bringing accountability to government?
By his own words not very much.
Steve Fenichel, MD
Member of Ethics Commission

Bravo to Council for challenging the need for lifeboats!! Informal chats with many lifeguards during strolls on the beach indicated that they felt the boards were more efficient and adequate when needed for a rescue rather than launching a cumbersome surf boat, and at less than 10% of the cost.. Are there circumstances where such a boat might be handy? Sure. But there are circumstances where a helicopter at each guard stand would be handy too. We taxpayers shouldn't be financing the ultimate. If guards feel the need to watch from the ocean side of the bathers it is just as easy for them to sit on one of the boards. The main purposes of the boats seem to be as backdrops for photos and to use in the lifeguard contests with other resorts. Maybe those contests should have board races.

Taxpayers are not paying for lifeboats or anything else concerning the Ocean City Beach Patrol. All the money comes from people who enjoy a safe day at the beach. Last year beach-taggers collected a record $3,800,000!

Mr Hamilton, I know you don't pay OC taxes, do you buy an OC beach tag or wear your old OCBP uniform to get out of it? Or did you spend the $50,000 you got from suing OC to actually buy a beach tag this past summer? We pay both and don't complain.

Beach tags are a user fee and should be purchased by all who use the beach, taxpayer or no. Someone who is offended by them can avoid the fee by not using the beach, or using it when he or she won't be "hounded" by the tag checkers. And think of the logistical nightmare or exempting taxpayers. Presumably they would have to wear tags while on the beach anyway, but just not pay for them. Of course taxpaying folks would be very forthright about the number of tags then needed, and those who own property here certainly would not get enough free ones for their tenants and guests to use. And lets not let those property owning shoobies off the hook, just as their real estate taxes provide the lion's share of the City's revenues they should pay beach fees so as to keep that revenue pot full. So if the city, in its infinite wisdom, puts out free beach tags, they should only be issued to residents.

The beach tag program works just fine. Leave it alone.

Wyatt, true it would be a logistical challenge to determine who is a taxpayer and who is a visitor but I see beach tags as an additional tax not a user's fee. It would be easy enough to prove who is a taxpayer and who lives in the household, this determining the number of tags to be given to taxpayers not just residents. Should I pay a user's fee to ride my bike on the boardwalk? How about a user's fee for the public restrooms? If the town can't afford to maintain and guard the beaches based on what we are already paying in taxes then the town's costs are too high. The "property owning shoobies" that you mention are paying for services they are not receiving for 8-9 months out of the year but are still paying full price for taxes. If anybody should receive "free" beach tags it should be these folks as they are carrying the town but not taking anything out during the off season.

BTW--I wasn't suggesting to change the beach tag program, I just stated that I did not necessarily agree with it.