Ethics program independence is, as far as I'm concerned, the single most important issue in ethics reform. Nothing gains the public's trust as much as an ethics program that is independent from the officials over whom it has jurisdiction.

It is clear from the second report of the Chicago Ethics Reform Task Force (attached; see below) that the task force members cared about making the Chicago's ethics program more independent. But the task force stopped short of community organization selection of ethics board members or budget guarantees. In fact, it stopped short of recommending any further independence for the ethics board, whose members are selected by the mayor. And the mayor, in his recommendations, decided to compromise on the task force's most (although not very) radical suggestion. It's notable that one of the few instances in which the mayor disagreed with the task force involved the mayor's authority.

My second blog post on the Chicago ethics task force's second report identified what I considered to be its worst ideas. Mayor Emanuel's recommendations accepted its bad ideas just as much as its good ideas.

News from British Columbia provides strong evidence of how difficult it is for anyone to deal with his own conflict situation, even a government ethics professional. No one should think that it is easy for someone to see an appearance of impropriety relating to himself or to respond to a conflict allegation against him in anything but a personal manner. A government ethics program must facilitate the process of dealing responsibly with a conflict situation by allowing, or even requiring, officials to seek neutral, professional advice. And a government ethics professional should do this as a matter of course, even if she has no formal ethics adviser.

A situation that arose recently in Atlanta shows how important it is to require applicant disclosure of relationships with local government officials, and to hold applicants accountable. According to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta's ethics office dismissed allegations that a council member had sponsored and voted on a no-bid contract when he had some sort of employment relationship with the contractor. According to an earlier Journal-Constitution article, the allegations were based on an internal e-mail by one of the contractor's executives, sent the day after he had met with the council member:

A conflict situation in Albuquerque presents an excellent opportunity to consider just what it is about conflicts that makes them problematic. According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal on Saturday, the chair of Albuquerque's Police Oversight Commission also directs the auxiliary of the local branch of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and her husband is president of the state FOP.

Someone who recently complained to the Police Oversight Commission about this situation focused his allegations on the fact that the national Fraternal Order of Police opposes citizen oversight of police conduct. He said that the chair "could not hold officers accountable while belonging to an organization that is against the very board she sits on. 'She obviously has a bias towards the police department.'"

The headline of a New York Times article today is, "Ethics in Play, Voters Oust Incumbents Under Inquiry." One's first impression upon reading the article is that people are throwing unethical politicians out of office. The system is working. But upon further thought, it doesn't seem to be working very well at all.