In January, I wrote a blog post about the District of Columbia ethics board's first public forum seeking recommendations for ethics reform. On April 17, the ethics board published a report that makes recommendations for improvements to the city's ethics program (attached; see below).

Of the five recommendations I made in my testimony to the D.C. board, only one of them appears in the recommendations. Our principal difference is that the board does not appear to agree with my argument that changes to ethics provisions should be left until all the essential elements of a government ethics program are in place. The ethics board's response to this is that, with respect to "structural and compositional changes to its makeup," it will "reserve any such comment and potential recommendations for future reports." That is, it will take the opposite approach to what I recommend.

According to a column in today's New York Times and a visit to the New York City Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) website, the BIC provides three easy lessons in how not to run an oversight commission. The BIC has jurisdiction over the private waste carting industry, businesses operating in the city's public wholesale markets, and the shipboard gambling industry. Its goal is to "preserve a healthy and competitive environment in [these] industries in NYC through a unique and comprehensive merger of law enforcement tactics and regulatory oversight."

In his column, Michael Powell asserts that, although the BIC is meant to create a competitive environment in the industries it oversees, at the BIC itself "no-bid, zero-transparency contracts seem distressingly common." According to the most recent former BIC administrator, there is “no requirement at the commission that [a contract] go out for competitive bid. There’s an internal review process.”

This week, San Antonio's mayor and city attorney proposed a number of reforms to the city's ethics code and campaign finance regulations. I will deal here only with the ethics reforms. A summary of the proposed reforms and a red-lined copy of the ethics code are attached (see below).

The impetus for these reforms is a matter I discussed in a blog post last September. The matter was mishandled by all involved, and some of the proposed reforms clarify the procedures to be used so that the next situation would presumably be handled better.

The mayor appears to have taken the reforms seriously. For one thing, his office reached out to me (and, most likely, others) for information on which to make responsible decisions. Sadly, few officials making ethics reform proposals contact me or show signs of having read City Ethics materials.

Appearances are very important in government ethics. A situation that has arisen with respect to a proposed state audit of the Palm Beach County ethics commission has created serious appearance problems.

A settlement in a Massachusetts ethics proceeding can be used as an educational opportunity in several ways.

According to a February 28 press release from the Massachusetts Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over local officials, a member of the Kingston Community Preservation Committee (CPC) participated in the making of a grant to a nonprofit organization for which she was the unpaid president. The grant was for the renovation of two boat sheds on the nonprofit's property, a river landing.

A "placeholder" is someone who agrees to run on a ticket with a mayoral candidate or be appointed by him, but has no interest or intention in actually doing the work required by the position. Such a candidate does not attend many meetings of the body to which she was elected (often she is not even in town much of the year) and, when she does attend, is usually not prepared. When her support is needed, she will sometimes read a short speech prepared for her by someone else.

One placeholder here or there is not too big a problem, but multiple placeholders on the same body can (1) lead to quorum problems, and (2) create the appearance that elected officials are simply rubber stamps for the mayor, and that real candidates, with their own opinions, need not apply, because one or both of the parties don't want them. This is demoralizing. Not only do citizens with opinions feel their service is not wanted by government. But when such citizens go to a public meeting, they find that, if they disagree with the ruling party's policy, there is no one from the ruling party who is listening and will openly discuss the issue. Instead, board members support moving to a vote as soon as possible, always, always, always voting the same as each other.

Is this a government ethics issue? I think it is. It involves a confusion of person and office. An official misuses his office if he continuously puts his personal obligations ahead of his public obligation to fulfill the duties of the office. It is only one's office to the extent one actively and responsibly does the work. If one does not or cannot, then one has to relinquish the office.