In the materials I have found online, Speech or Debate Clause issues are discussed in terms of state legislators (and usually state constitutions), even though the federal Speech or Debate Clause applies equally to local government legislators. But the discussions are all relevant to local government situations.



I will continue to add to this list, and I'd appreciate receiving information about other discussions of these issues.



Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The decision of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in In re Arnold (May 23, 2008) causes serious problems with respect to ethics enforcement against local government legislators, at least in Louisiana. It opens up a can of worms that I haven't seen discussed (I'd appreciate being alerted to where it has been discussed).

The court decided that the Legislative Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Louisiana Constitution, better known as the Speech or Debate Clause in the U.S. Constitution, prevents an independent ethics board from making decisions regarding state legislators with respect to their actions in a "legitimate legislative sphere," despite the fact that the legislature passed the bill creating the ethics board and approved the members of the ethics board, which were selected by the presidents of private colleges in Louisiana.

In the Arnold case, the decision regarded two legislators' failure to withdraw from participation in a matter that involved the financial interests of family members.

Here's the Speech or Debate Clause language, from Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:


Before you think this has nothing to do with local governments, please consider that the Supreme Court has determined that the Speech or Debate Clause (and the common law that preceded it) applies equally to local government legislators. The decisions are Bogan v. Scott-Harris 523 U.S. 44 (1998), which gives absolute immunity from civil liability to local officials performing legislative functions, and Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265 (1990), which gives immunity from a contempt proceeding.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One doesn't like having to get approval from the federal government for changes in its voting policy, in order to prevent racial discrimination; it says that everything's fine and dandy in Northwest Austin. The requirement can be found in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, extended in 2006.

NAMUDNO, which apparently doesn't think the Voting Rights Act should have been extended, because racial discrimination is a thing of the past, sued the United States in 2006, trying to have itself exempted from this provision or have Section 5 declared unconstitutional. Yesterday it lost. A three-judge panel of the federal District Court of the District of Columbia  found the requirement constitutional (it's a 121-page decision; this is serious business, and it makes you wonder who all was backing the utility district, which services about 3,500 people, according to an AP article).

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The land deals of Congressman Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar, CA) could provide fodder for numerous blog entries on various topics. I wrote about him and ethics recidivism, to show how important it is to deal with a local politician's unethical actions so that they don't turn into much bigger ones as he rises through the ranks.

Now I'd like to look at a way in which municipal officials, feeling they're helping out, enable unethical conduct.

One thing that Rep. Miller has allegedly done, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times, is to employ IRS Code Section 1033 to postpone paying capital gains taxes on land deals with municipalities.  Section 1033 (usually referred to as the forced-sale exemption) is limited to situations where land has been condemned by government agencies or destroyed in natural disasters.  It gives a landowner 180 days to reinvest the money in other property.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

Six weeks after my blog entry on the mass resignations in Eastern Oregon towns due to new financial disclosure requirements, the predictions of government coming to an end (still being fanned to flames by Fox News) have turned out to be highly exaggerated.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

It took a long time for Egil "Bud" Krogh to write his book on Watergate, but it finally came out a few months ago.

Krogh is not one of the better known Watergaters, partly because he pleaded guilty to his crimes. But as the head of the Plumbers, in charge of investigating leaks to the press, he oversaw the break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. For years he has been giving lectures on ethics, a program he calls the Integrity Zone (and his book is entitled Integrity).

Krogh's book has two central lesson for local government ethics, one about loyalty, the other about certainty.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.