If you want to encourage unethical behavior, give individual officials independent power over the sorts of decisions where people have the greatest incentive to tempt officials, and officials are in the best position to enforce pay-to-play.

Here's an interesting potential conflict. Chicago's Civic Federation, a "non-partisan government research organization working to maximize the quality and cost-effectiveness of government services in the Chicago region and State of Illinois," is asked by the city council to evaluate the city's 2016 Olympics bid, to make sure that Mayor Daley's Olympic committee has a reasonable financial plan, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune.

Most of the work on the Civic Federation's report was done by L.E.K. Consulting. The report's conclusion was "that the operating budget provides adequate protection for taxpayers, but the development of the Olympic Village exposes the City of Chicago to continuing real estate risks that must be managed." In other words, the report essentially approved of Chicago's Olympic bid.

Here's a mind-twister of a situation, from St. Marys City (GA; pop 17,000). According to an article on jacksonville.com, four members of the city council wrote the state attorney general asking for a ruling on whether a fifth council member violated state law by refusing to disqualify himself from voting on the proposed relocation of the St. Marys Airport (he owns a business there).

Applicant disclosure is an effective part of local government ethics that is usually ignored. Usually it is officials who are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest, either in the form of annual disclosure statements, revised when circumstances change, or in the form of announcements that they have a potential conflict and are withdrawing from involvement in a matter.

Explaining a political decision on the basis of government ethics, when that really isn't the reason, can lead to government ethics reform made on the basis of politics. That's what appears to have happened in Boerne (TX), a small "city" of 6,000 residents outside San Antonio.

In May I wrote a blog post about a so-called ethics emergency in Corpus Christi, declared by a lame-duck council at its last meeting. This so-called emergency was the excuse for pushing through ethics reforms without running them by the city's ethics commission or allowing public discussion. The new council quickly suspended the reforms, pending review by the ethics commission.

At least that was the excuse the new council used. According to an article in the Caller-Times this week, the council did not accept much of what the ethics commission recommended (click, wait a while for the PDF file to load, and go to page 332ff), including the principal reform passed by the lame-duck council, which was to prevent the families and business partners of council members and senior officials from entering into contracts with the city.