EDITORIAL

Half-a-loaf bill best to expect from legislators.

   One assemblyman referred to it as a "half-baked" measure. Then he voted for it.
   Another termed it "half a loaf" of reform. Then he, too, voted for it.
   However you slice it, the ban — or, perhaps more appropriately, the half-ban — on dual office-holding approved by the Legislature’s lower house last week is well short of the kind of reform that’s going to restore a whole lot of public confidence in our elected officials.
   But it is a step in the right direction. And it’s the only step state lawmakers have been willing to take in that direction after decades of allowing blatant conflicts of interest to persist under their very noses.
   The mere fact that members of the New Jersey Legislature have been permitted to serve simultaneously as mayors, municipal council members, county freeholders or other local elected office-holders has made a mockery of our system of separate branches and levels of government. That there are 19 current legislators — 12 Assembly members and seven senators — who occupy two or more elected positions is an embarrassment to New Jersey, surrounded as we are by other states than prohibit the practice.
   Now New Jersey will, too — sort of.
   The measure passed by the Assembly would ban dual office-holding effective Feb, 1, 2008. But it carves out an exemption for anyone who holds two or more offices as of that date. In other words, the Legislature’s current crop of double dippers can continue to serve two masters (and qualify for two public pensions) for as long as they choose to occupy both their state and local positions.
   Some critics argue that this provision may make the bill unconstitutional because it affords special legal status to one particular group of individuals. Others contend it not only perpetuates an iniquitous practice, but makes matters even worse by concentrating the power of dual office-holding in a select few.
   Many lawmakers, including several who voted for the measure, are urging Gov. Jon Corzine to issue a conditional veto removing the controversial grandfather clause. (The governor had warned earlier that he wouldn’t sign the state budget, which must be adopted by July 1, unless the Legislature first sent him a bill banning dual office-holding. He didn’t specify at the time whether the ban would have to be absolute.)
   Tempted though the governor may be to hold out for a full loaf of reform, we think it would be a mistake not to accept this half-loaf now. As a practical matter, it’s the best he’s going to get out of the Legislature, which has gone back and forth on this issue for several years without being able to muster the votes for a more comprehensive ban.
   Moreover, we suspect that once the ban takes effect next year, pressure might be brought to bear on those few remaining dual office-holders to acquiesce to the spirit of the new law. Over time, it’s going to become more and more difficult for those grandfathered by this measure to justify why they, and only they, should not have to obey the law that bans dual office-holding.
   So we urge Gov. Corzine to sign this measure of reform, flawed though it may be. As he himself is fond of saying — and it certainly applies in this instance — the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.