Proximity rules are common to local and state government ethics codes nationwide (see my blog post on them from five years ago). They require officials to withdraw from any matter dealing with property within a certain distance of property they own or rent, no matter how many others have property within the same proximity.

According to a big exposé piece in yesterday's Washington Post, "Congressional representatives are required to certify that they do not have a financial stake in the actions they take." But the rules they have written to apply to themselves do not address proximity. The issue is not proximity, but the process by which proximity was not addressed.

On Saturday, I attended a one-day conference on Institutional Corruption sponsored by the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University (videos of it will eventually appear here). Although local government was scarcely mentioned (there was one image of a painting that portrayed the 1930s machine in Kansas City, MO), many ideas that were discussed are applicable to local government ethics.

I will start with the ideas of Mark Warren, a professor at the University of British Columbia, not because he was the first or best speaker, but because, on the train to Boston, I read the online draft of his 2005 paper "Democracy Against Corruption" and found it fascinating. His talk at the conference presented some of the same ideas.

In November 2010, Broward County, FL voters approved an ethics code for officials of the cities in the county (the code also applies to the county commissioners). The code finally became effective January 2, 2012.

Three cities in Broward County (home to Ft. Lauderdale) have put referendum questions on the January 31 ballot seeking to strike the applicability of certain of the code's provisions to their cities' officials. The principal one is the requirement to disclose one's outside salary. Personally, I don't think disclosing a salary is necessary. It's sufficient to ask officials to say they are paid, say, more than $20,000 by an employer, or more than $5,000 by a client, to show that the job is serious and there is a financially meaningful relationship with a client.

What is notable about changing this particular provision is how self-serving it is for mayors to waste the public's time on a question that is only intended to protect their privacy. Of course, the argument is made that otherwise officials will resign in huge numbers. But if officials were to resign in huge numbers, the law would likely be changed. The fact is that disclosure requirements always lead to this argument, but rarely to the reality. When there were mass resignations in Oregon a couple of years ago (see my blog post), the officials either quickly were appointed again or others were appointed to replace them. The predictions did not come true, and the public did not suffer.

Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote an excellent op-ed piece for the New York Times last Sunday. It was about disclosure, more specifically about the way disclosure sometimes neither leads to more transparency, nor prevents what it is intended to prevent. In the government ethics situation, that would mean preventing misconduct.

Technical compliance, especially with the limited disclosure rules of local ethics codes, often provides little important information. We might know that an official owns more than 5% of Hometown Developers, but we don't know who owns the rest. Therefore, when one of the other owners comes before the official's board, there is no record of a special relationship between the owner and the official.

The situation of Rose Pak, a power broker for San Francisco's Chinese-American community who was featured a week ago in a New York Times article, raises some interesting questions. A paid consultant to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, she has never held public office. Nor has she ever registered as a lobbyist or been an official member of a campaign, even that of the Chinese-American man who was just elected mayor, Edwin Lee. According to the article, she has mobilized Chinese votes, volunteers, and contributions for a succession of mayors and city supervisors in return for city financing of social programs and building projects in Chinatown. She also helps Chinese-Americans get appointments in the city government, most notably Lee's appointment as interim mayor (he had been the city administrator).

“The concern with potential corruption does not stop just because the relationship has entered the bedroom.’’

For those of you who think my blog needs a little spice, this is a good ice breaker. These are the words of Kathay Feng, head of California Common Cause, spoken at a meeting of the Fair Political Practices Commission, California's state ethics commission, which has jurisdiction over local officials and employees (quoted from yesterday's PolitiCal column in the Los Angeles Times). The issue was a proposal to allow officials in a “dating relationship’’ with a lobbyist to accept and not disclose “personal benefits commonly exchanged between people on a date or in a dating relationship.’’