This week, San Antonio's mayor and city attorney proposed a number of reforms to the city's ethics code and campaign finance regulations. I will deal here only with the ethics reforms. A summary of the proposed reforms and a red-lined copy of the ethics code are attached (see below).

The impetus for these reforms is a matter I discussed in a blog post last September. The matter was mishandled by all involved, and some of the proposed reforms clarify the procedures to be used so that the next situation would presumably be handled better.

The mayor appears to have taken the reforms seriously. For one thing, his office reached out to me (and, most likely, others) for information on which to make responsible decisions. Sadly, few officials making ethics reform proposals contact me or show signs of having read City Ethics materials.

Many major cities do not prohibit gifts from those seeking special benefits from the city government (restricted sources) to family members of city officials. Such a prohibition may seem a stretch, at least theoretically. How can a government interfere in the gifts given to an official's family members? Consider this situation, from 2011, which recently became public.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the CEO of a dietary supplement company seeking to get acceptance of its new supplement in Virginia paid $15,000 in catering costs for the wedding reception of the daughter of Virginia's governor. Three days before the wedding, the governor's wife spoke at a seminar about how the new supplement would be a way to lower health-care costs in Virginia. Three months later, the supplement's launch party was held at the gubernatorial mansion.

“You work for the banks, they pay you, and yet you’re supposed to represent the public interest. ... Consultants have a financial incentive to do things to attract repeat business.”

—U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the conflicts of interests of consultants who are paid both by federal bank regulatory agencies and the banks, according to an article in yesterday's New York Times.

This shows that at least one federal legislator does understand the concepts underlying the conflicts of interest that arise from government officials raising funds for campaigns. Brown recognizes that when you get money from banks and others overseen by the government, you have a conflict of interest because (1) you are taking money from those regulated while overseeing their regulation, and (2) you will do what is necessary to get "repeat business."

All he and his colleagues have to do is take the next step:  recognizing that what is true of consultants is equally true of legislators. That for legislators, "repeat business" means contributions to future campaigns. Then it becomes clear that public financing of elections is necessary to allow legislators (at every level) to be seen as representing only the public interest rather than also the interests of those who give them large campaign contributions.

Applicant Disclosure Is Good for Officials
If Ontario or Mississauga required broad applicant disclosure, Mississauga's mayor would not be in court this week arguing that she didn't know that her son had invested in a huge hotel and convention center deal. According to an article yesterday on the 680 News Radio site, she has been alleged to have voted with a conflict, and could be forced to resign as mayor.

The mayor has said in her defense that she didn't read a crucial document containing her son's name, because she didn't have her reading glasses. She has to plead ignorance, something that, of course, she cannot prove. Had her son been required to disclose that his mother was the mayor, she would have been alerted and she could have withdrawn. Had she not withdrawn, there would be no need for a trial.

“There’s a case out there; I myself cannot speak about the case. However, I would ask the community, each and every one of you, to keep me in your prayer.”

— Spring Valley, NY mayor Noramie F. Jasmin, at the first public meeting after she was arrested for accepting a bribe from a developer who was cooperating with the FBI (from an article in today's New York Times). As happens far too frequently, Mayor Jasmin turned the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent into a prohibition on her to speak honestly about the allegations made against her.

Appearances are very important in government ethics. A situation that has arisen with respect to a proposed state audit of the Palm Beach County ethics commission has created serious appearance problems.