In The Kingdom of Individuals (Cornell University Press, 1993), F. G. Bailey's principal concern is what he calls svejks (pronounced "shvikes"), that is, individuals in organizations who put their personal, but not usually financial interests ahead of the organization, and yet act as if they are loyal to the organization, using its proclaimed values to defend their actions. This is not the sort of conflict of interest that is ordinarily dealt with in government ethics. But what the author says about the conflicts of interest in organizations, including governments, is valuable, and often fascinating.

So in the next few blog posts, I will riff on ideas raised in this book.

It is troubling that legislators insist that legislative immunity protects them in order that they may represent their constituents, and yet legislative bodies rarely have rules to ensure that their members represent their constituents by showing up to debate and vote.

The result is that some legislators, at every level, do not adequately represent their constituents by showing up to work. And often voters do not know. This may not be something that can be enforced by a local government ethics program, but it is certainly a conflict of interest issue. And the absence of rules, and of public responses by legislators to abuses, is an indication of a poor ethics environment.

Updates: August 24 and 26, 2010 (see below)

For those who, like me, believe that neither a mayor nor a local legislative body nor a city attorney has any business getting involved in the government ethics process, here's an example you can use of the mess they can make when they do get involved.

According to an article in yesterday's New York Times, the New York Governor’s Task Force on Public Authorities Reform has filed its report (not yet available online) on the implementation of the Public Authorities Reform Act of 2009, whose provisions are summarized in a separate document.

The task force was created in December 2009 to assess the effectiveness of the Act and and come up with ways to improve the accountability of state and local public authorities.

One of the report's most important findings, according to the article, is "that politicians were inserting themselves in the business of authorities, which are supposed to be independent bodies, by sometimes pressuring their appointees to vote in certain ways."

The Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) has been getting a lot of heat lately. The bi-state organization operates four toll bridges and a commuter system between Philadelphia and southern New Jersey.

According to an article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pennsylvania treasurer, who is an ex-officio member of DRPA's board, "recommended major changes to the rules of DRPA to end conflicts of interest and to temporarily halt spending on law firms and other professional services."

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post about intimidation, but I forgot to mention what might be the greatest fear among citizens relating to their local government:  the fear that if they speak out against local officials, especially school officials, it will affect their school-age children.

I was reminded of this fear by a letter to the editor in yesterday's Neighbor News (northern New Jersey). The writer of the letter wants a PTA member to file an ethics complaint against a school board member, because only PTA members received a particular e-mail endorsement. He wrote, "[I] need a brave PTA member who'll admit to receiving it, to file an ethics complaint. Unfortunately, those to whom I've spoken fear retaliation affecting their children's education."