City officials are using psychological justification to reframe decisions
Originally published by the Ocean City Sentinel
by Susan Cracovaner
To the Editor:
At some point, we have all done something “good” to balance out something less favorable—like running a mile to justify eating a donut. It’s psychological justification—using positive actions to manipulate the perception of less favorable ones, now or in the future.
Public officials frequently use psychological justification to defend questionable choices, preserve power and rationalize administrative shortfalls. But when it comes to our public officials, a scoreboard of positive actions cannot serve as political currency to excuse poor decisions or questionable behavior. Good governance requires that every council action and administrative choice be analyzed solely on its own merits.
Sadly, our own Ocean City local government relies on psychological justification. After considerable public concern over redevelopment of the former Wonderland property, council appeared to do the right thing and embrace a holistic Master Plan strategy for our boardwalk, moving away from a singular focus on the Wonderland property. They formed a Boardwalk Subcommittee—with broad representation—and tasked it with making recommendations to the Planning Board.
These positive actions rightly garnered widespread public approval. But after making overtures to public engagement, council subsequently ignored the insights of the subcommittee, Master Plan, and prior Planning Board determinations. Without real explanation or evidence as to why, they passed a 4–3 resolution to give the developer potential special allowances by designating the Wonderland property as an area in need of rehabilitation. They disenfranchised citizens, removing our city’s protections inherent in the Master Plan process.
Was the subcommittee and all its hard work merely a means to placate the community and make those four “yes” votes seem less objectionable? And if not, what could be the reasons their well-received report was overlooked?
The Aug. 29 Town Hall meeting is yet another example of this from our local government.
Mayor Jay Gillian convened the special event to highlight new services and projects—but why? It was not routine or customary. We had all heard numerous times during his recent 2026 mayoral campaign the same list of accomplishments, and the recent capital budget presentation had already outlined new initiatives. There was nothing new.
So what was to be gained from this meeting? Given the recent litigation facing the city, and the focus in that lawsuit on the inappropriate actions by the mayor, this recounting of political currency seemed to have a very specific purpose: to highlight some known achievements to take the spotlight off of questionable behavior so that the public would excuse his misconduct.
The recent mayoral campaign illustrated the same strategy. The mayor faced a difficult re-election environment marked by personal and financial challenges. He overcame these obstacles in part by relying on testimonials and a long list of accomplishments—political currency used to secure votes. His strategy compelled citizens to overlook his complicated personal and financial circumstances by focusing on select highlights of his record in office—even so, a majority of residents cast a vote for a candidate other than Gillian (who was able to win due to the three-way split in votes).
Psychological justification is powerful because it allows public officials to “cash in” on positive actions to offset bad decisions. It happens all the time. Our job as citizens is not to fall for it.
First, it is a form of manipulation, a way to dishonestly skew public perception by trading on past goodwill. Its use tends to grow the longer an official remains in office.
Second, it rationalizes unethical behavior as harmless, turning ethics into a bank account: Do something good today, get away with a questionable choice tomorrow.
Finally, psychological justification undermines good governance. It erodes consistency in decision making, weakens accountability, diminishes trust in local government, and marginalizes the public’s role in oversight and engagement. But once we can recognize how the tactic works, we can strip it of its power. Let’s reclaim our ability to judge actions on their merits, not on manufactured goodwill, for the health of public governance and the good of Ocean City.
Susan Cracovaner
Ocean City
