making local government more ethical

Save time and effort

by reading our introduction to local government ethics or using the City Ethics Model Code. Also check out our top ten lists of books, or movies.

Discuss & Contribute

Comment on a blog post

Review our Publications

We now have several publications available in various digital formats, including all major e-Reader formats! Please go HERE to view.

Services

Take a look at the services we offer.
An interestting debate about lobbying and advisory groups can be found on the Austin Bulldog website. Late last week, the Bulldog published an article about an ethics complaint filed by the president of the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC) against an appointed member of the Land Development Code Advisory Group (CAG). The complaint alleges that the CAG member is an unregistered lobbyist for a real estate consulting company, and that the resolution establishing CAG says that lobbyists or employees of lobbyists, registered or not, may not be members. The CAG member insists she has never lobbied, nor has her consulting firm.

There are two important issues here:  the definition of lobbyist and the membership of advisory groups. I have dealt with the latter issue in three blog posts:  a Fort Worth situation, "Making Use of Expertise," and "Alternatives to Allowing Conflicted Individuals to Sit on Advisory Boards." So I won't go into this issue here, except to say that there is no reason in the world to limit the prohibition on membership to lobbyists without limiting it equally to anyone directly or indirectly seeking special benefits from the government. There has to be a balancing of expertise with conflict of interest, and conflicts of interest are not limited to lobbyists.

When city and county contractors and their lobbyists don't follow the rules, it's difficult to catch them, because few cities have an oversight office that investigates on its own initiative. Without such a program, communities depend on federal and state criminal enforcers who focus on bribery and kickbacks.

It is the FBI and a federal grand jury that did the job in Dallas County which, unlike the city of Dallas, has no ethics program, just an aspirational code. In fact, it has two aspirational codes, only one of which is linked to on the county website; the one linked to is the National Association of Counties Code of Ethics (attached; see below); there is also a short ethics code in the county Code of Ordinances (Sec. 94-51). But there is no local ethics program.

According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, a federal grand jury has returned a 109-page indictment charging a long-time Dallas County commissioner (Price), his chief of staff, a corporate lobbyist, (Nealy) and a corporate consultant (Campbell) with a conspiracy that involved nearly $1 million going to the commissioner (in the form of money, land, and cars (one of the four cars, a New 2005 BMW 645Ci, cost $100,000)), while the commissioner supported the bids of the lobbyist's clients and provided them with confidential information that gave them a "strategic advantage" over other bidders.

When a lobbying code requires that lobbyists report "specific lobbying issues" or "the subjects on which they have lobbied," what exactly is required? The best approach is to include more specific language in the disclosure section, such as "information sufficient for an ordinary member of the public to identify the law or resolution, contract, grant, regulation, real property or project, rule, proceeding, board or commission determination, or other matter."

Another approach is to include this information in comments to the lobbying code, or in a manual. This is what Congress chose to do in its Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) Guidance publication (attached; see below). Here is what this publication says on the topic, and the example it provides:
The District of Columbia's former chief administrative law judge settled with the D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA) this week (the settlement agreement is attached; see below). The misconduct she admitted to included her hiring of a business partner without going through the standard hiring procedures, and contracting with a company owned by the business partner's boyfriend (see my detailed discussion of the charges against her).

The reason this is not an update to the earlier blog post is the way in which the judge's attorney mischaracterized the charges after the settlement was reached. According to an article in the Washington Post, the attorney characterized the charges she admitted to in the settlement as “technical violations relating only to the appearance of conflict of interest, rather than an actual conflict. ... We are pleased that our client has again been vindicated as part of this process. ... Given that all of the serious charges relied upon by Mayor Gray to discharge Walker are being dismissed, . . . Walker intends to continue to pursue her appeal to overturn Mayor Gray’s imprudent disciplinary decision.”

The big news in the government ethics world today is the investigative piece in the New York Times about New York governor Andrew Cuomo's interference in the work of the Moreland Commission he created to investigate corruption in the state government and to recommend reforms to prevent such corruption (see my blog post on its recommendations).

Not only did Cuomo and his secretary meet with and contact the commission co-chairs, telling them not to go after certain groups associated with the governor. In addition, the commission's executive director, appointed by the governor, read the e-mails of commission members and staff, and reported to the governor's office, providing confidential information for the governor's personal and political benefit.

According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle last week, Oakland's council approved an amendment to the city charter, to go before voters in November, that would increase the authority of the city's ethics commission and provide it with the funds it needs to do its job. Congratulations to the council for what is, in some ways, an excellent reform package.

This ethics reform process began with a June 2013 civil grand jury report, which called for giving the city's ethics commission more authority to enforce ethics laws, and more resources with which to do it. Then, in May 2014, a working group of individuals mostly from good government-oriented civic organizations filed a report that made numerous ethics reform recommendations (see my blog post on it). The council quickly got to work on a charter amendment that contains some of the working group's recommendations.