A post yesterday in Coates' Canons: NC Local Government Law Blog raises an interesting issue about the situation of a local government candidate who has an interest in a contract with the local government which, by NC law, is prohibited not for candidates, but for a winning candidate the day he or she takes office. This provides a good occasion to look at the intersection of candidates and local government ethics codes, outside of the more common campaign finance issues.

It's nice when something you write about in a blog shows up on the front page of the New York Times the following day. Yesterday, in a post called "Privatization and Transparency," I discussed new types of privatization involving nonprofits, which raise new sorts of problems. One type of nonprofit operates government-funded facilities or programs, such as schools. These nonprofits are sometimes a way for organizers to make money by selling property or services to the schools. It is easier for such self-dealing to occur when the entities are not subject to transparency or ethics laws.

The Times article reports on a nonprofit charter school company whose 33 schools in Texas receive over $100 million a year in taxpayer funds. The charter school company, actually a foundation, is part of a group of foundations, affiliated with a religious movement, that operate 120 schools in 25 states.

An interesting question arises from a big investigative article in yesterday's Miami Herald:  is it unethical for a mayor and his wife to be part of a shadow banking network in their city?

Here are three interesting conflict of interest case studies from Tuesday's news.

Conflicts That Make You Act Differently, and Imaginative Resolutions
According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily Breeze, a former Los Angeles airport attorney, who reviewed the paperwork submitted by four companies bidding on concessions at the airport, is married to an attorney who works for a law firm that represents one of the four companies (the law firm even owns a small stake in the company). It is not clear whether the husband ever represents the company or whether he has represented the company in this matter.

Chinese walls, that is, ways to separate an official from a matter as to which he has a conflict, are a perfect way to appear to be responsibly handling a series of possible conflicts, but are these walls great or are they window dressing? And even if the walls truly work, are they enough to deal responsibly with a series of possible conflicts?

I wrote a blog post on Chinese walls back in March, but I used examples from the federal and state levels. I mentioned a supposed Chinese wall in San Diego back in 2008, but mainly to show how officials were in denial. A nomination for a position in Baltimore County provides a good local government example of a Chinese wall proposal and a good opportunity to see if there is another approach that might work better for all involved.

According to an Associated Press article yesterday, a New York City school principal "didn't think there was a conflict of interest because there was no exchange of money."

According to an article in the Salmon Arm (B.C.) Observer yesterday, a town councillor argued against a relationship being a conflict as follows: "If I was taking a financial look at this, it would probably have a negative impact. It’s probably going to take [my business partner] away from our business, just as council takes me away from it.”

In other words, money is at the center of how many local government officials view conflicts of interest.