Ordinance an attempt to block Fink from office I believe the Holmdel's proposed conflict of interest legislation ("Official proposes ban on holding government jobs," June 6) and its attempt to hijack the electoral process in the guise of "conflict of interest" is an example of over-government and unlikely to achieve its stated goals. Time and time again, the people of Holmdel have (rightly or wrongly) demonstrated their resistance to what they perceive is excess government - whether it be in the form of a tree ordinance, historic-preservation ordinance or, in this case, bypassing election law to influence political power. A word of caution to the majority on the Holmdel Township Committee: Proceed at your own peril. The proposed legislation is misguided for the following reasons: + It paints with too broad a brush. The abuse of office due to "conflict" is more likely to occur when a Township Committee member also works for the school system (because the committee sometimes has to rule on defeated school budgets) or for another town (because the two towns might have jurisdictional disputes or compete for limited resources). But it is hard to imagine an office-holder basing a local decision on its ability to "benefit DEP" or any other county, state or federal agency. + But in those rare instances where a conflict might occur between township and other levels of government, there are already effective mechanisms in place: (a) public disclosure and, (b) the requirement that township officials recuse themselves from voting on issues where there might be a conflict of interest + And of course, the trump card of all, conflict of interest control measures still exists in the form of the electoral process. If elected officials act inappropriately and mechanisms are in place that makes the public aware of a transgression, the people can simply vote those officials out of office + Actually, the bigger temptation for conflict of interest abuse figures to be in the private sector where a Township Committee member might be tempted to make a policy decision that would favor his private firm, but it's hard to imagine a situation where a committee member with a job in the public sector would base a local decision on "how it would help a public agency" + Preventing a public official from holding office to prevent conflicts of interest will not solve the problem because there's nothing to prevent that official and his political party from nominating a "surrogate" who'll do his/her bidding anyway. For example, the Committee might be well advised to examine the number of political appointees and county committee members working in the real estate industry. (Just because no one in real estate actually serves on the Township Committee doesn't mean there isn't indirect influence.) + It's pretty evident from the way the proposed ordinance was drafted that the majority on the Township Committee is trying to prevent a popular office-holder, Larry Fink, from continuing to serve the public as an elected Township Committee member + Although Mr. Fink works for DEP, the potential for conflict of interest here is zero (or close to it). It is hard to conjure up any situation where a decision he'd make in Holmdel would somehow be done "to benefit the DEP." If anything, the reverse would be likely given Larry's strong advocacy for open space preservation and environmental protection in Holmdel. (Any influence he'd have at DEP would no doubt help us, not hurt us.) If the committee's concern is that Mr. Fink will unduly influence the DEP in ways that might be at cross purposes with township policy, it seems to me that this should be DEP's problem, not theirs. This is bad law. I urge the Holmdel Township Committee to drop the proposed legislation. If they want to block Mr. Fink from public service, I suggest they do it the old-fashioned way - in an election based on the issues, not via some contrived power play. Jeff Gollin Holmdel