There's a lot of food for thought in the February 21 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case Lodge No. 5 of the Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia.

The suit was brought in order to end the prohibition on police officers making campaign contributions to local candidates directly or through a party or PAC, including the police union's own PAC. The suit was brought against the city and its ethics board, which had promulgated regulations based on the 1951 ordinance (see especially regulations 8.8 and 8.14).

The suit was based on First Amendment free speech and free association arguments, as well as a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection argument.

A "placeholder" is someone who agrees to run on a ticket with a mayoral candidate or be appointed by him, but has no interest or intention in actually doing the work required by the position. Such a candidate does not attend many meetings of the body to which she was elected (often she is not even in town much of the year) and, when she does attend, is usually not prepared. When her support is needed, she will sometimes read a short speech prepared for her by someone else.

One placeholder here or there is not too big a problem, but multiple placeholders on the same body can (1) lead to quorum problems, and (2) create the appearance that elected officials are simply rubber stamps for the mayor, and that real candidates, with their own opinions, need not apply, because one or both of the parties don't want them. This is demoralizing. Not only do citizens with opinions feel their service is not wanted by government. But when such citizens go to a public meeting, they find that, if they disagree with the ruling party's policy, there is no one from the ruling party who is listening and will openly discuss the issue. Instead, board members support moving to a vote as soon as possible, always, always, always voting the same as each other.

Is this a government ethics issue? I think it is. It involves a confusion of person and office. An official misuses his office if he continuously puts his personal obligations ahead of his public obligation to fulfill the duties of the office. It is only one's office to the extent one actively and responsibly does the work. If one does not or cannot, then one has to relinquish the office.

In ethics, there are two basic approaches: (1) an ends-based approach, also referred to as utilitarian or consequentialist; and (2) a means-based approach, also referred to as rules-based or teleological. Government officials, and most people when speaking about government, generally use the former, while government ethics uses the latter. This causes a lot of problems.

Therefore, it is very heartening to see an academic taking a critical look at ends-based approaches to solving a governmental problem. The academic is Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos (U. of Chicago Law School), the problem is redistricting, and the name of his draft paper is "The Consequences of Consequentialist Criteria."

It's been over two years since I wrote about the indictments of former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, his father, and a city contractor. This morning, according to an article in the Detroit Free Press, the jury entered its verdicts. Kilpatrick was convicted on 24 of 30 counts, including five counts of extortion, racketeering, bribery and several mail, wire and tax fraud charges. The contractor was found guilty on nine of 11 counts, including racketeering and several counts of extortion.

People (including government officials) usually talk about conflict situations as if they involved the public (represented by do-good ethics types) trying to get public servants (who are represented as corrupt) to sacrifice either their family, friends, or business opportunities or their duty to do their jobs as representatives or officials.

This is sad, because this leads people to ignore the other side to conflict situations:  the effect living and dealing responsibly with conflict situations can have on public servants. Being conflicted means having to choose among obligations. This isn't easy for anyone, and it can have serious consequences. One goal of government ethics is to make it easier for public servants, to take some of the burden of having conflicts off their shoulders through clear rules and professional ethics advice.

This is why I was so happy to read a New York Times editorial today, regarding Mary Jo White's nomination as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The editorial suggests questions Ms. White should be asked. One of the questions involves her husband. It shows a sensitivity rarely seen in public debate:

I begin the "Intent" section of my book Local Government Ethics Programs by noting that, "One of the distinguishing aspects of government ethics is the fact that it does not deal with or require a showing of intent, willfulness, knowledge, or motive."

The next sentence is, "This is yet another reason why the criminal enforcement paradigm is not a very good fit for government ethics."

I raise this issue now because, according to an article in yesterday's Tampa Times, the Florida Senate passed ethics reform bills this week that (1) require the state ethics commission (which has jurisdiction over local officials) to dismiss complaints where the conduct was the result of "inadvertent or unintentional error," and (2) make it a felony when an officeholder's ethical misconduct is "motivated by money."