"The worst thing you can do is read the [ethics] law like a lawyer and look for loopholes."

—Richard H. A. Washburn, training manager with the New York State Commission on Public Integrity in a training session with St. Lawrence County's new ethics board and other officials, according to an article in this week's Watertown Daily Times.

Washburn also told the reporter, "I tried to instill to them that it's to their benefit to have someone objective to ask and get an honest answer."

Updates: August 24 and 26, 2010 (see below)

For those who, like me, believe that neither a mayor nor a local legislative body nor a city attorney has any business getting involved in the government ethics process, here's an example you can use of the mess they can make when they do get involved.

A couple of months ago, the Ohio Ethics Commission did something very wise and valuable:  it drafted an advisory opinion on nepotism rules, gathering information from years of partial, specific advisory opinions, and providing examples. It even gives excellent definitions of each of the relevant terms, including such generally applicable terms as "public contract"  and "anything of value."

Recusal is a two-part process. First, the official discloses his interest in a matter that has or will come before his board or agency. Then, the official does not participate in that matter.

In Tucson, this process was distorted by the involvement of a board attorney. According to an article in Wednesday's Arizona Daily Star, the chair and vice-chair of the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District Board, an important development board in Tucson, were concerned about a member's possible conflict of interest and asked the board's attorney for an advisory opinion. The city of 540,000 does not appear to have an ethics officer or commission, so this was the most reasonable alternative.

Here's a clever way to abuse the advisory opinion process. A few months after conduct begins, seek advice from the ethics commission. After the EC tells you it's okay, increase the amount of conduct so much that the advice is no longer relevant, and then point to the advice in defense of the conduct. Finally, refuse to provide information about the extent of the conduct, so that no one can provide hard evidence that there is truly a change in the extent of the conduct.

This gambit is being employed in New York City, according to an article in yesterday's New York Post. It might work in the short run, but in the long run it's a good way to undermine trust in government.

The usual image we get when we hear about a government official getting something free from a contractor is of a new kitchen or driveway. But free services can also be invisible, like legal advice and other professional service.