Here are two interesting situations where it is not clear what an ethics commission's role and authority are. One in Baltimore, the other in Philadelphia.

Have you ever wondered how a local government department head can afford to live like a king on a $100,000 salary?

This is what people are wondering in South Africa, where union leaders are calling for "lifestyle audits" of all senior government officials in order to find out who is on the take, according to an article in today's New York Times. According to an article in The Mercury this week, the nation's Public Service Commission wants to perform these audits, because government departments have ignored its complaints about senior officials who have failed for many years to file financial disclosure statements.

In my previous blog post, the issue arose of voiding a planning and zoning commission's approval of a permit because one of the commission members had a conflict of interest. Connecticut law automatically invalidates the commission action, without any individual or body having to act. But this is unusual. In fact, most jurisdictions do not expressly provide for the avoidance of permits, contracts, or other transactions.

An unpublished Connecticut Superior Court opinion takes an odd approach to a conflict of interest charge against a member of a zoning commission in the small town of Pomfret (pop. 4,000). Not only is it odd, but it could very well be unconstitutional, as it partly bases its decision on whether individuals have spoken out for or against a matter before the zoning commission. My thanks go to Patricia Salkin, who wrote about the decision in her excellent Law of the Land blog and sent me a copy of the decision.

Update: The bills discussed below passed the council on March 22.

Just down the road from Philadelphia, Baltimore too is considering ethics reforms, but it's in response to a scandal involving its past mayor rather than in response to the work of a task force.

There are two bills before the Baltimore council, both of them introduced while the new mayor was council president. One makes changes to the city's ethics board composition and ethics training, the other to the city's ethics code. Neither is much to get excited about.

Last December, I listed the major recommendations of Philadelphia's Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform in its 58-page report.

According to an article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, just three months later, fifteen of seventeen city council members have co-sponsored a series of ethics reform bills. That sounds like good, fast work that deserves some serious applause.

But there are some big question marks. One is that none of the bills are available online. Each bill is given a bill-less page (1  2  3  4   5; also see the March 4 council minutes for a full list of the bills and sponsors), and in one case there is even a link to a bill, but the link doesn't work. So I am dependent, for now, on what I read in the newspaper.