It's been four months since my latest update on San Bernardino County's failure to follow grand jury ethics reform recommendations with any action. An op-ed piece by Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, in this week's San Bernardino Sun calls for campaign contribution limits (there are currently none at all), a prohibition on off-year fundraising, disclosure requirements, and an ethics commission to enforce the law.

When a major newspaper's editorial on a city council's handling of an important ethics issue begins with "Sneaky. Real sneaky." it's something worth sharing with those interested in local government ethics.

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.

One of the biggest little problems in government ethics is the inability to filter out very minor violations, which can be dealt with either by dismissing the complaint or by requiring, say, an additional training course. It is a waste of limited time and resources to investigate and hold hearings on minor violations. An EC needs to be able to use its judgment to decide when a violation is not worth investigating.

Although it is hard to define what is a minor, or de minimis, violation, it is important to provide for EC discretion where they exist, either in an ordinance provision or an ethics commission regulation. This discretion should not be left to advisory opinions; if it does originate there, it should quickly be added to the EC's regulations or to the ordinance).

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.

Update: March 4, 2010
I am placing this update up front because my consideration of the Committee of Seventy's criticism of the Philadelphia ethics board assumed the truth of the Committee's portrayal of the city's retirement law. Sadly, it turns out that it misrepresented the law, saying that the ethics board was unethically employing a loophole, when the ethics board's rehiring of its general counsel is expressly legal according to the retirement law.

Here is the language from §22-310(5)(g) of the Philadelphia Code:

Re-hire. There is no return to regular employment from a DROP. Once entering the DROP, the employee is in the DROP until separation from City service, at which point the member is retired. A retiree may be re-hired by the City, subject to the provisions of this Title (see Section 22-204), but no former DROP participant who is rehired by the City may be eligible to again participate in the DROP.

Note that §22-204 provides detailed guidelines for rehiring employees who retired under the DROP program.

Shame on the Committee of Seventy! Good government organizations should not misrepresent laws, especially when criticizing the very bodies they're supposed to be supporting.