In November 2010, Broward County, FL voters approved an ethics code for officials of the cities in the county (the code also applies to the county commissioners). The code finally became effective January 2, 2012.

Three cities in Broward County (home to Ft. Lauderdale) have put referendum questions on the January 31 ballot seeking to strike the applicability of certain of the code's provisions to their cities' officials. The principal one is the requirement to disclose one's outside salary. Personally, I don't think disclosing a salary is necessary. It's sufficient to ask officials to say they are paid, say, more than $20,000 by an employer, or more than $5,000 by a client, to show that the job is serious and there is a financially meaningful relationship with a client.

What is notable about changing this particular provision is how self-serving it is for mayors to waste the public's time on a question that is only intended to protect their privacy. Of course, the argument is made that otherwise officials will resign in huge numbers. But if officials were to resign in huge numbers, the law would likely be changed. The fact is that disclosure requirements always lead to this argument, but rarely to the reality. When there were mass resignations in Oregon a couple of years ago (see my blog post), the officials either quickly were appointed again or others were appointed to replace them. The predictions did not come true, and the public did not suffer.

It's not every day that a neighboring town makes the front page of the New York Times. It's especially surprising when the reason is, at heart, a local government ethics problem.

The town is East Haven, CT (most recently in the national news for a part of it being overrun by waves during Hurricane Irene), and the problem ostensibly involves the mistreatment of immigrants in town by certain police officials. That's the criminal point of view. But the real problem is loyalty. The police, and certain town officials, put their loyalty to each other ahead of their loyalty to the town's residents. Four police officers have been indicted, one of them the head of the police union, and it appears that the union and the mayor are solidly behind them.

Local governments often give special recognition to individuals and organizations. It's part of promoting the good works that are being done in the community. But it is also, of course, a form of preferential treatment. For every individual and organization that is recognized for good works, there are many others that are not recognized.

If each high-level official could provide his own special recognition to individuals and organizations in the community, then everyone would have a better chance of being recognized. But there would also be more chance for the misuse of office to reward (and obtain) supporters and contributors rather than good works, and to get in the good graces of various constituencies in the community.

This interesting issue arises from a front page article in today's New York Times about the frequency with which New York City's comptroller has handed out official commendations, 760 of them in his two years in office, a little more than one a day. Not only does he make the commendations, but he gives priority to the ceremonies attached to them. Unlike other officials, he usually delivers the commendations personally at events.

One of the most damaging kinds of preferential treatment is one that is hard to pin on any one individual:  public works work done for some, but not for others, or done for some before being done for others. Whether or not this is done in any particular city or county, people talk about it, speculating that it is done, talking about things they've seen and heard. It's an important part of the perception that local government is run for those in government and those with political connections, and that the "important" areas of town (i.e., where the wealthy and powerful live) are favored.

And who is to say it's not happening? Denials are meaningless, explanations often futile.

Enter modern technology, more specifically GPS and online mapping. This is how, as of today, Chicago is dealing with suspicions that some areas of the city are being favored over others when it comes to the city's most important public works work:  snow plowing. The city has unveiled something it calls Plow Tracker on its Chicago Shovels page, which includes other relevant programs, such as Snow Corps, a way to lend a hand to neighbors who can't shovel their walks.

An ethics bill in the District of Columbia, sponsored by council member Muriel Bowser, went quickly through committee and was passed by the council, with only one dissenting vote, on December 20 (the final committee bill can be found here). What's amazing about it is that, despite the speed with which it moved, Bowser's staff made many improvements to the bill in response to critiques from me and others. It is not a perfect bill, of course, but it's a pretty special gift for the holiday season.

The creation of an ethics task force is a popular way for local government leaders to pursue ethics reform. It provides the appearance of community involvement and independence, and it means that reform ideas are not something to be imposed by a mayor on council members and other officials, which can cause a great deal of resentment.

Atlanta's Mayor Franklin chose this route in 2002, as did Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter in 2008. One difference is that Franklin appointed her own task force, while Nutter allowed community organizations to pick seven of the nine members of his task force.

The latest mayor to take this route is Chicago's Mayor Emanuel. What is unusual about his use of the task force is that he is not responding to a scandal, but rather doing what he promised in his campaign.