Local governments often give special recognition to individuals and organizations. It's part of promoting the good works that are being done in the community. But it is also, of course, a form of preferential treatment. For every individual and organization that is recognized for good works, there are many others that are not recognized.

If each high-level official could provide his own special recognition to individuals and organizations in the community, then everyone would have a better chance of being recognized. But there would also be more chance for the misuse of office to reward (and obtain) supporters and contributors rather than good works, and to get in the good graces of various constituencies in the community.

This interesting issue arises from a front page article in today's New York Times about the frequency with which New York City's comptroller has handed out official commendations, 760 of them in his two years in office, a little more than one a day. Not only does he make the commendations, but he gives priority to the ceremonies attached to them. Unlike other officials, he usually delivers the commendations personally at events.

An ethics bill in the District of Columbia, sponsored by council member Muriel Bowser, went quickly through committee and was passed by the council, with only one dissenting vote, on December 20 (the final committee bill can be found here). What's amazing about it is that, despite the speed with which it moved, Bowser's staff made many improvements to the bill in response to critiques from me and others. It is not a perfect bill, of course, but it's a pretty special gift for the holiday season.

Yet another brief has been filed in the Carrigan v. Commission on Ethics of the State of Nevada case, this time the EC's supplemental brief on remand to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The principal issue discussed in this brief is vagueness, which has stood in the background behind First Amendment issues of free speech and free association. The free speech arguments were put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the free association arguments were found not to have been originally raised, so they were dismissed.

In a blog post on the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, I discussed some of the issues raised in this brief, because they were discussed by the justices, even though their decision itself said nothing about vagueness, because the Nevada courts had not reached this issue. Now it will be discussed, and its discussion raises far more interesting and important issues than how the First Amendment applies to government ethics.

What can be done when a public agency that gives gifts to public officials destroys its gift records?

This question arises from an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week about the Alpharetta (GA) Convention and Visitors Bureau, an independent agency funded partially by a local hotel tax. According to the article, the bureau's CEO destroyed her records of the gifts – tickets mostly to see famous music acts – she gave out to people such as members of the city council after 2009. The city attorney told her that it was a "personal task list" and, therefore, there was no legal requirement that she track the tickets. Once again, here's a city attorney who acts as if he didn't know there was such a thing as an appearance of impropriety. Is the concept really that difficult to understand?

In his book Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption, Dennis Thompson discusses two tendencies that lead to the overlooking or obscuring of institutional corruption’s significance. Those who bring or judge charges tend to individualize misconduct. This limits the wrongdoing to the individual who is charged, exonerating other members of the legislative body, even if they are involved in similar conduct, and ignoring the local government's ethics environment.

Those who are charged, and their defenders, tend to do exactly the opposite. They institutionalize the misconduct. They emphasize the institutional aspects of the alleged misconduct in order to excuse the conduct ("everyone does it"), or they justify the conduct as an institutional privilege. They effectively argue that their conduct is less corrupt than it may seem, because it is common and acceptable inside the government. This sends the message that institutional corruption is not as serious as individual corruption.

Looking at government ethics through the appearance standard, as Dennis Thompson did in his book Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption, reveals the great importance of independence to ethics advice and enforcement. No one is in a worse position to see appearances of impropriety than someone who considers his motives to be good, and his goals to be of utmost importance. This is not the mark of a corrupt individual, but rather a common human characteristic. A legislator not only has an obligation to respect people's reasonable reactions to her conduct, but equally has an obligation to recognize how hard it is for her and her colleagues to know how people will react to what they feel is good or, at least, legal conduct.