“You work for the banks, they pay you, and yet you’re supposed to represent the public interest. ... Consultants have a financial incentive to do things to attract repeat business.”

—U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the conflicts of interests of consultants who are paid both by federal bank regulatory agencies and the banks, according to an article in yesterday's New York Times.

This shows that at least one federal legislator does understand the concepts underlying the conflicts of interest that arise from government officials raising funds for campaigns. Brown recognizes that when you get money from banks and others overseen by the government, you have a conflict of interest because (1) you are taking money from those regulated while overseeing their regulation, and (2) you will do what is necessary to get "repeat business."

All he and his colleagues have to do is take the next step:  recognizing that what is true of consultants is equally true of legislators. That for legislators, "repeat business" means contributions to future campaigns. Then it becomes clear that public financing of elections is necessary to allow legislators (at every level) to be seen as representing only the public interest rather than also the interests of those who give them large campaign contributions.

Applicant Disclosure Is Good for Officials
If Ontario or Mississauga required broad applicant disclosure, Mississauga's mayor would not be in court this week arguing that she didn't know that her son had invested in a huge hotel and convention center deal. According to an article yesterday on the 680 News Radio site, she has been alleged to have voted with a conflict, and could be forced to resign as mayor.

The mayor has said in her defense that she didn't read a crucial document containing her son's name, because she didn't have her reading glasses. She has to plead ignorance, something that, of course, she cannot prove. Had her son been required to disclose that his mother was the mayor, she would have been alerted and she could have withdrawn. Had she not withdrawn, there would be no need for a trial.

Appearances are very important in government ethics. A situation that has arisen with respect to a proposed state audit of the Palm Beach County ethics commission has created serious appearance problems.

“Incompatible offices” is a form of conflict that is usually left out of ethics codes. One reason is that there is a common law prohibition against officials holding incompatible offices. But whether or not the conflict is common law or in an ethics code, this is an important kind of conflict that should be included in ethics training so that it is understood. It should also be a topic for which officials may seek ethics advice.

There are many offices that one individual should not hold, and multiple reasons why one individual should not hold them, but the term “incompatible offices” refers to only a subsection of these offices and a subsection of the reasons they may be seen as incompatible. It also does not refer to offices held by couples, business partners, or boss and employee that might well be considered highly incompatible.

An incompatible offices matter has arisen in Salinas, California. A school board member successfully ran for the Salinas council. The school district is within Salinas.

Many people believe that conflicts of interest are in and of themselves bad, and that government ethics laws should prevent those with conflicts of interest from becoming public servants. Many people believe that government ethics is about being good or bad. When the two come together in one person and one speech, the result can be fireworks.

People who have misconceptions about government ethics also tend not to be able to distinguish between different sorts of conflict situation. Here, the problem was distinguishing between pre-existing conflicts and conflicts created by events.

The person, in this case, is Connecticut gubernatorial candidate past and future Tom Foley, who testified yesterday before the state legislature's Government, Administration and Elections Committee in favor of Senate Bill 727.

A settlement in a Massachusetts ethics proceeding can be used as an educational opportunity in several ways.

According to a February 28 press release from the Massachusetts Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over local officials, a member of the Kingston Community Preservation Committee (CPC) participated in the making of a grant to a nonprofit organization for which she was the unpaid president. The grant was for the renovation of two boat sheds on the nonprofit's property, a river landing.