making local government more ethical
Rarely is a non-politician celebrity the subject of a local government ethics matter. So with David Beckham the subject of a Miami-Dade County ethics commission investigative report last week, and with important issues to boot [pun intended], this is an impossible matter to pass by.

Initiating Contact
The most interesting issues in this matter are whether lobbying is a one-way street, and the underlying issue: whether motive or intent is relevant to lobbying. That is, when there is a meeting between a government official and the officer of a company who may be seeking special benefits from the official's government, does it truly matter who initiated the contact? Is it reasonable that, when the government official initiates the contact, the meeting does not involve lobbying, but when the company officer initiates the contact, the meeting does involve lobbying?

In a blog post ten days ago, I predicted that Florida state senator Joe Abruzzo, the sponsor of SB 1474, would realize that the newly amended bill would not do what he really wanted and make the appropriate changes, so that the amended SB 1474 would be consistent with HB 1315.

And so he did. He has drafted an amendment to the amended bill that makes it somewhat consistent with HB 1315 (the new amendment is attached; see below). The amendment is supposed to be taken up by the senate Community Affairs Committee on Tuesday, April 1.

According to Wikipedia, a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is "a model in particle physics in which at high energy, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model which define the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, are merged into one single interaction."

It appears that the case of Michael Quinn Sullivan and his trio of organizations, Empower Texans PAC, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (a 501(c)4) organization), and Empower Texans Foundation (a 501(c)(3) organization) may provide a Grand Unified Theory in the field of government ethics, bringing together the fields of campaign finance, lobbying, transparency, and conflicts of interest.

The story of state legislative interference with local government ethics programs in Florida continues with a newly amended bill in the state senate (SB 1474 is attached; see below), sponsored by senator Joe Abruzzo, whose antagonism to the Palm Beach County ethics program has been the subject of three City Ethics blog posts in the past year (audit of the Palm Beach County program, legislative committee call for suspension of the program, and possible involvement in Florida League of Cities' ethics reform proposals).

Since the state senate cannot pass rules that apply only to one local government ethics program, the bill would apply to all of them, including the Jacksonville program administered by City Ethics' president, Carla Miller.

The stated goal of the amended bill is to bring more due process to local government ethics programs. The stated problem is that the same people who find probable cause also determine whether an ethics violation has occurred. This appears at first blush to be a serious problem. Once an individual or body has determined probable cause that a respondent official has violated an ethics provision, he or it may be considered to have decided against the respondent and, therefore, be biased against him. Such an individual or body may argue before another individual or body that a violation has occurred, but should not make any further determination in the matter.

What a Probable Cause Finding Actually Means
However, as I told Sen. Abruzzo, this shows a misunderstanding of what it means to find probable cause. This finding, which is often misunderstood, does only one thing:  it allows the matter to proceed. It is less a determination or finding than a decision not to dismiss, because at least one allegation in a complaint appears to have enough validity to be considered. It is a decision to proceed from a preliminary investigation to a full investigation and, possibly, a hearing. In most jurisdictions, it is also a decision to make a matter public. But it is not a decision that a violation has occurred. It is only a decision that there is enough evidence not to dismiss the complaint without a hearing. It is the sort of preliminary decision that judges make on a daily basis, and yet are allowed to make final decisions on the merits, as well.

While I was on vacation last week, the biggest story in local government ethics appears to have been, once again, in the District of Columbia. According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the charges brought by the U.S. Attorney (attached; see below), the CEO of the parent company of a major D.C. government health care contractor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to channel over $2 million in illegal contributions to and in-kind expenditures in support of two D.C. mayoral candidates and multiple D.C. council candidates between 2006 and 2011.

"Why hire a lawyer to do an internal investigation? It’s because you get the privileges. Otherwise, you’d save a little money and hire a consultant or accountant." These are the wise words of Bruce A. Green, Director of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham Law School, as quoted in the New York Times yesterday in an article about the obstacles JPMorgan Chase has put in the way of prosecutorial access to internal notes of interviews regarding the bank's involvement in the Madoff case.

For government ethics, the most important question here isn't the strategy of using lawyers rather than other investigators (or, in the case of ethics advice, lawyers instead of government ethics professionals). The most important question is, Should government attorneys be differentiated from other government officials on the basis of their function or on the basis of their membership in a professional group?

randomness