Government ethics is a process issue. Process issues appeal more to, and are better understood by, lawyers. Although corruption may be seen as a substance issue, the ways to prevent it are considered procedural. So at election time, most candidates choose not to talk about ethics reform, at least in any detail. When they raise the issue, it is usually to portray themselves as clean and ethical, and sometimes to portray others as corrupt.

This process-substance distinction is rarely made, at least publicly. But according to an article in yesterday's Yale Daily News, it was made yesterday by a New Haven mayoral candidate (a lawyer, of course), who said, “I’m not going to focus on these process questions. I plan on focusing on reducing crime, improving our schools, creating youth centers for our kids and creating jobs.”

This was said in response to another candidate's request that all candidates pledge to participate in the city's public campaign financing program (which I administered until last July), among other things.

“In Albany, they’re really, really good at coming up with something that looks like reform, and that they tout as reform, but really falls short.”

—New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, quoted in yesterday's New York Times with respect to the chances of the state legislature passing the governor's public campaign financing plan. This is the same problem that faces local government ethics reform:  ordinances and amendments that pose as reform, but miss the target by failing to create an effective government ethics program.

I don't get it. Such a big deal has been made out of the Bell, CA officials paying themselves big bucks. This was considered the big local government ethics story of the last few years. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitizer Prize for uncovering it.

Yes, what happened in Bell was appalling. But what happened in Luzerne County, PA was far, far worse. And yet, for example, the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics has two blog posts about Bell, and none about Luzerne County.

The reason I raise this issue is that I feel that government ethics puts too much emphasis on money and the misconduct of bad apples. Although money was involved in Luzerne County, in fact a lot more than in Bell, what makes the scandal so horrible is that (1) it led to hundreds of young people being imprisoned in juvenile detention centers who had done nothing and who had been given almost no chance to defend themselves (this is why it's known as the Kids for Cash scandal); and (2) a large number of professionals inside and outside of the court system knew something serious was wrong, and yet only a handful of them tried to do anything to bring notice to what was happening and bring it to a stop.

“Incompatible offices” is a form of conflict that is usually left out of ethics codes. One reason is that there is a common law prohibition against officials holding incompatible offices. But whether or not the conflict is common law or in an ethics code, this is an important kind of conflict that should be included in ethics training so that it is understood. It should also be a topic for which officials may seek ethics advice.

There are many offices that one individual should not hold, and multiple reasons why one individual should not hold them, but the term “incompatible offices” refers to only a subsection of these offices and a subsection of the reasons they may be seen as incompatible. It also does not refer to offices held by couples, business partners, or boss and employee that might well be considered highly incompatible.

An incompatible offices matter has arisen in Salinas, California. A school board member successfully ran for the Salinas council. The school district is within Salinas.

Many people believe that conflicts of interest are in and of themselves bad, and that government ethics laws should prevent those with conflicts of interest from becoming public servants. Many people believe that government ethics is about being good or bad. When the two come together in one person and one speech, the result can be fireworks.

People who have misconceptions about government ethics also tend not to be able to distinguish between different sorts of conflict situation. Here, the problem was distinguishing between pre-existing conflicts and conflicts created by events.

The person, in this case, is Connecticut gubernatorial candidate past and future Tom Foley, who testified yesterday before the state legislature's Government, Administration and Elections Committee in favor of Senate Bill 727.

A settlement in a Massachusetts ethics proceeding can be used as an educational opportunity in several ways.

According to a February 28 press release from the Massachusetts Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over local officials, a member of the Kingston Community Preservation Committee (CPC) participated in the making of a grant to a nonprofit organization for which she was the unpaid president. The grant was for the renovation of two boat sheds on the nonprofit's property, a river landing.