Since my exchange with an attorney for the Michigan Townships Association in June, I've been wondering about the inherent conflicts involved in local government associations. The bottom line is, Is there any relationship between who sits on the boards of such associations and laws such as the new Michigan model local government ethics code and the Michigan law that requires charter township board members to vote, except to appoint themselves to a township office? In other words, in the government ethics context, do local government association members act for the best interests of their constituents or for their own best interest?

"You can buy Supreme Court races" under the current system, said Rep. Pedro Colón (D-Milwaukee). "The sign is outside: 'This court is for sale.'" (from an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week)

Nobody wants this to be said, at least nobody but four of the seven Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, according to another article in the Journal Sentinel. On October 28, the Supreme Court rejected, 4-3, a League of Women Voters petition to require justices to recuse themselves from a case involving a person or entity that had, in the past two years, contributed over $1,000 to their campaigns. By the same vote they accepted a petition written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (the state chamber of commerce).

In a recent blog post on the new Michigan Model Local Government Ethics Ordinance, I noted in passing that the model wrongfully made divulging confidential information a violation even when it benefits no one, and that this is not a government ethics issue.

This same issue arose this week in Bainbridge Island (WA), according to an article in the Bainbridge Island Review. A complaint was filed against a council member for leaking confidential information about settlement talks between the city and the Bainbridge Ratepayers Alliance. The complaint was filed by the Ratepayers Alliance.

An interesting disagreement has arisen over what is required for a contract with a council member to constitute a conflict of interest in California. According to an article in the Valley Chronicle, the city of Hemet and the League of California Cities disagree with a grand jury about whether a particular council member has a conflict. The council member is the executive director, and her salary, taxes, etc. essentially the only expenditure, of a nonprofit organization running a program that is included in the city budget.

One thing I've failed to do in this blog is sufficiently emphasize that making ethical decisions in government is not primarily about being a good, ethical person, as most people seem to think. Essentially, it is the same as making other decisions. As I  recently wrote, "with effective training, in an ethical environment, government ethics should be just another professional routine."

This week saw the opening of the trial of former New York state senate majority leader Joseph Bruno for honest services fraud. According to the assistant U.S. attorney presenting the case, as quoted in the Albany Times-Union, although a criminal trial, "this case is about conflicts of interest. It's about failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and it's about concealment of information that might have exposed conflicts of interest."