Some good news from California, which takes an odd, hybrid approach to local government ethics. It has a state ethics commission (the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)) that has limited authority over local officials in the areas of conflicts of interest and campaign finance. And the state has many local government ethics programs, which are all over the place in terms of quality and areas over which they have authority.

The first piece of good news is that the FPPC has been given the authority, with respect to Government Code §1090, (1) to provide written ethics advice and (2) to civilly or administratively enforce violations. Section 1090 deals solely with conflicts of interest involving contracts. In the past, there has only been criminal enforcement of this section by district attorneys or the Attorney General, and advice could be given only with respect to the provisions in the Political Reform Act. For some crazy historical reason, §1090 was never made part of the Political Reform Act, which is the state's principal ethics code.

Yesterday evening, I attended a meeting of my town's planning and zoning commission. The principal agenda item involved a request for an amendment to the town plan to allow the building of a private recycling center in the town. The commission's secretary read a letter from the requesting party's attorney, who is a member of another town board, withdrawing the request. The letter said that the principal reason for withdrawal of the request was opposition to the amendment by a small group of citizens who had "distorted" the facts.

Whether this makes sense or not, it constitutes an attack, without any stated foundation, on citizens who spoke their views at a public meeting and in a flyer delivered to mailboxes asking people to attend last night's meeting. Coming from a public official and respected local attorney, it sent a clear message that citizen participation is damaging, and that those who participate will be publicly criticized. This makes it less likely that, in the future, my town's citizens will come forth and participate in matters such as this.

I would like to raise two related questions. Does a local official have an obligation, in any role he plays, not to do anything that would undermine citizen participation in government? Does an attorney have such an obligation?

The Miami-Dade County ethics commission has been a leader in reaching out to the community. In 2011, it co-sponsored a local government ethics conference, which attracted people from all over Florida. In 2012, it organized the first Ethical Governance Day, according to an op-ed in the Miami Herald this weekend, written by the EC's executive director, Joseph Centorino. This year the second Ethical Governance Day will be held on Tuesday, October 22.

Ethical Governance Day's principal activity involves civic leaders going into the county's public schools to talk about ethical governance and the value of citizen participation in government. It is a great thing to openly acknowledge that citizen participation in government is a major long-term goal of a government ethics program. It is also a great thing to have something like this available when bad things happen, such as the arrest of three mayors in the county in August. And it is a great way for an ethics commission to go beyond what it is required to do and make a big difference in the community.

A new online collaborative effort in the field of campaign finance was launched yesterday. Known as the SUN Center (SUN stands for States’ Unified Network, even though it includes cities or, at this point, city), it is intended, according to a press release announcing the launch, for the sharing of "innovative ideas, strategies and legislation related to campaign finance. The SUN Center will be a one stop shop for the public to stay informed and encourage campaign disclosure in elections."

According to an article in the Washington Post this week, the federal Office of Government Ethics has reminded agencies to tell their furloughed employees that "they remain employees of the Federal Government during furlough periods . . . It is particularly important for employees to understand that ethics provisions regarding outside activities, including provisions regarding outside employment, will continue to apply to them while they are in a furlough status."

Would this also be true of furloughed local government employees, or even employees who take an unpaid leave of absence?

There is a fact of life that is very hard for many local elected officials to admit:  most of the campaign contributions given to incumbents and serious challengers come from two sources:  those seeking special benefits from the government and those who work for the government (and their unions). If both of these groups were not permitted to make campaign contributions, local elections would be contested with very little money, unless the government instituted a public campaign financing program.

Instead of admitting the facts of life, politicians undermine the public trust with personal attacks that turn into ugly squabbles like the one reported by the Houston Chronicle last week. When the incumbent mayor filed a campaign report showing dozens of contributions from interested professionals, contractors, and developers, her principal challenger called her a "shake-down artist." I doubt she had to shake down a single contributor, and the challenger, a former city attorney, most likely knew this.