A central dispute in the first group of charges brought against Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley involved whether he was required to disclose properties held by a company he owned, as long as he listed the company among his assets. Stapley felt this was not required.

Both times Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley has had criminal charges brought against him, the counts included perjury charges for omissions on disclosure forms (2008 charges, 2009 charges). Is this the best or even an appropriate way to handle such omissions?

Update: 9/30/09
I was asked to do a short interview on Phoenix's NPR station KJZZ yesterday, to provide a government ethics view on issues relating to the latest battle in the uncivil war among elected officials in Maricopa County, the county that includes Phoenix. My research into what is going on raised all sorts of interesting issues. I'll deal with them in multiple blog posts.

First, what happened. County Sheriff Joe Arpaio arrested County Supervisor (effectively council member) Don Stapley three days after a county attorney moved to dismiss charges against Shapley for numerous purgery counts relating to the filing of financial disclosure forms. The new counts, according to an article in the Arizona Republic, involve primarily (i) campaigning for officer positions in the National Association of Counties (NACo), a membership organization, including misuse of office and personal use of campaign contributions; and (ii) misrepresentations on a mortgage document, campaign finance reports, and a tax return. The great majority of the counts are felony counts.

One issue, which I had never thought of, is not part of the case, but its facts led me to think of it. According to the counts, one NACo campaign contribution was in the sum of $25,000, and fifteen others ranged from $3,000 to $24,999.

Recusal is a touchy subject for government officials, for two principal reasons. One, withdrawing from a matter can appear to constitute an admission of misconduct. This is because so many people, and even ethics codes, consider it wrong to have a conflict. Actually, recusing oneself is a way of dealing responsibly with a conflict, and is the opposite of misconduct.

Two, raising the issue of a conflict can disclose information the official would rather keep personal. After all, the conflict involved is between personal interests and the public interest, so some sort of personal interest must be disclosed if a conflict is disclosed.

Undisclosed conflicts can cause a lot of problems, but rarely are they a matter of life and death. In Collin County, TX, north of Dallas, an undisclosed conflict could have been responsible for a man's death sentence (and, perhaps, many more sentences).

A new argument has been made in the legislative immunity part of the case against a Baltimore council member who is now the mayor. In a memorandum to dismiss a new indictment (attached; see below), filed on September 8, the mayor has argued, on pages 3-10, that testimony by someone who attended events which the mayor attended in her legislative capacity cannot be used against her.

This is an interesting extension of the argument that legislative immunity prevents any evidence to be introduced regarding a legislator's legislative activity. Such evidence ordinarily includes transcripts, recordings, legislators' testimony, and related letters and other documents, that is, documents that are part of legislative activity. It does not ordinarily include testimony by a non-legislator about an activity that was non-legislative in nature, but which was attended by a legislator.