making local government more ethical
I talk a lot about poor ethics environments, probably the single most important element in unethical conduct. But since loyalty is the strongest force in such environments, a great deal of work is done to hide the existence of poor ethics environments. After unethical conduct is discovered, it is rare for anyone to set out just how bad things were.

But sometimes things are so bad, it becomes clear that there aren't just a couple of bad apples, but a whole bad crop. Tamarac, Florida, a city of 60,000 in Broward County (home of Ft. Lauderdale) is such a place. In fact, southern Florida itself seems to have been one big rotten crop of oranges, at least during the boom years.

It is generally agreed that it is best to preserve an ethics commission's jurisdiction over officials and employees after they quit or leave office. There are two reasons for this. One, to prevent them from escaping enforcement by quitting or leaving office. This is especially important because it can take a long time for information to come out that an ethics violation might have occurred, and for an ethics proceeding to be completed. The second reason is to allow for post-employment restrictions. But many ethics codes ignore this best practice, and end an ethics commission's jurisdiction the moment an official leaves office.

This becomes especially problematic when the jurisdiction has strict confidentiality rules, as can be seen in the recent events in White Plains, NY.

What politicians say about a government ethics issue is sometimes so devoid of a basic understanding of government ethics that it's hard to believe that they are not being willfully ignorant (i.e., not discussing ethics matters with ethics professionals) or cynically disingenuous. If only there could be some requirement that, before an official opens his or her mouth to say something about government ethics, he or she actually discussed the matter with someone who does understand it. Not any lawyer, but a professional in the field. Then at least we'd know whether it's ignorance or faux ignorance.

Take what is being said about the proposed consolidation of all the state ethics agencies in Connecticut (my state) in order, it is being said, to save money. I wrote a blog post recently about the problems this consolidation raises, and yesterday the Hartford Courant ran an op-ed piece by Mitchell Pearlman, former executive director of the state's Freedom of Information Commission, making many of the same arguments, and more.

This is a very serious blog post, but I want to start it with a game. Here are the headlines of stories that are said to be "related" to an article on the WLTX website yesterday relating to local government ethics in South Carolina:

  • Naked Woman Creates Ruckus on Delta Flight
  • Latest Forecast Update on Storm Potential
  • Deputies: Thieves Took 4,560 Gallons of Gas
  • 10-year-old Boy Stabbed in Back with Steak Knife at School
What could the article be about?

I had a conversation with a developer the other day, which got me thinking in what I think are interesting ways about unwritten land use rules.

According to an article in the Metro West Daily News on Friday, the Ashland (MA) board of selectmen sent two reported allegations of possible acts of ethical misconduct to the state ethics commission. The request sought not enforcement, but clarification. I hope by "clarification" the board meant that it is seeking advice about continuing the behavior. Its other option was to file a complaint with respect to past behavior. But it did not seem to want to "accuse" its fellow selectman of anything.