The May 8, 2007 Ethics Advisory Panel Report (“Report”) vindicates the Governor. The Report seems so poor however, it cannot add or detract from the earlier belief Governor Corzine acted impartially (… Under what circumstances did Justice O’Hern leave the Court …). But, it certainly doesn’t help.
The reason seems obvious (but read the review and see for yourself).
THE SAND
The QUESTION before the Panel was “whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the Governor [Corzine] in conducting recent CWA contracts negotiations.” Report, p.1.
The ANSWER the panel gives Governor Corzine is “The Governor has a non-delegable duty to govern....” Report, p. 6, Pt. 4. “Even when there is a direct financial benefit . . . there is not a conflict of interest when ‘[1] the action reasonably cannot be avoided under the doctrine of necessity, and where [2] the action is preceded by public disclosure of the relationship or the proposed action and the personal interest of the Governor or his immediate family.’” Report, p.6, par. 4, citing Code of Conduct for the Governor, (F) Conflicts and Appearances of Conflicts, (c).
This is probably the only conclusion in the Report that matters, one ruling that overrides all other findings, all other facts, all other law, all other errors. The title of that conclusion is the “Rule of Necessity.” The Rule of Necessity seems to be a common law provision generally applied to judges. Its substance is that where all available judges are somehow biased and thus disqualified from acting in some matter, no judges are disqualified from acting in that matter. The logic is that the issue (contract) must be resolved (negotiated) so people can move on. Justice is done by a disqualified person(s) even if the result is injustice. Assuming the invocation of the necessity rule is appropriate; the Governor’s Code of Conduct is not mandatory and may be violated with impunity by Governor Corzine or any Governor or Acting Governor.
"We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light a candle."
