making local government more ethical
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle last week, Oakland's council approved an amendment to the city charter, to go before voters in November, that would increase the authority of the city's ethics commission and provide it with the funds it needs to do its job. Congratulations to the council for what is, in some ways, an excellent reform package.

This ethics reform process began with a June 2013 civil grand jury report, which called for giving the city's ethics commission more authority to enforce ethics laws, and more resources with which to do it. Then, in May 2014, a working group of individuals mostly from good government-oriented civic organizations filed a report that made numerous ethics reform recommendations (see my blog post on it). The council quickly got to work on a charter amendment that contains some of the working group's recommendations.

A New York Daily News article yesterday describes an interesting conflict situation. At least one lobbying firm has worn two hats in its relationship with the speaker of the New York City council. One hat was that of a campaign and appointments consultant, the other was that of a contract lobbyist for multiple clients. See a Crain's New York Insider blog post from January for more about such relationships with the speaker.

This is legal, as the speaker's spokesperson insists, but there is still a serious conflict situation that needs to be handled responsibly. As Susan Lerner, head of New York Common Cause, is quoted as saying, “The merger between campaign consultant and lobbyist by the same entity raises significant problems and concerns.” In other words, the problem lies in having one firm wearing multiple hats in its relationship with a high-level official.

What specific problems does wearing these two hats cause? One, consulting creates a special relationship that goes beyond the usual meals and meetings with lobbyists. A special relationship leads to special access and favoritism, or the appearance of these. Lobbying is all about relationships, and lobbyists are obligated to do anything they can to further their relationships, especially with someone as important as the head of a major city's council.

Is it appropriate for a mayor — especially a mayor in a city with strict gift rules and a public campaign financing program that has strict campaign contribution limits — to work with an organization that lobbies the state on behalf of his policies and sponsors ads and materials that support his views and, especially, celebrate his successes?

This is the situation in New York City, where Bill de Blasio, in his first year in office, is being celebrated by an entity called Campaign for One New York (CONY), which announced yesterday its expenditures and contributors (in keeping with de Blasio's support of transparency, it went well beyond the requirement of disclosing contributors of over $5,000).

An excellent editorial yesterday by Dan Barton, editor of the Kingston (NY) Times, raises a few important issues relating to local government ethics proceedings.

According to Barton, Kingston's new ethics board dismissed a complaint from a city alderman that the mayor had violated the ethics code by hiring as an attorney for the city's local development corporation a lawyer with whom the mayor practiced as "of counsel."

Garbage is the principal regular point of contact between individuals and their local government. If people are happy with their garbage pickup, they are likely to be happy with their local government. For this reason, smart high-level local government officials make sure that garbage pickup is done well.

In Chicago, the members of the board of aldermen wanted to be given credit for garbage pickup. They also wanted to use it as a way to provide their supporters with jobs. To do this meant ward control over garbage collection and a garbage collection map based on wards, not on what was most efficient. This meant more trucks and more employees, more votes for incumbents, and more costs for taxpayers.

A recent action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the city of Harvey, IL, a poor city of 30,000 just south of Chicago, deals with a different sort of fiduciary duty than the usual government ethics case. In a complaint dated June 24, 2014 (attached; see below), the SEC alleges that the city's comptroller acted as financial adviser in three bond issues for a hotel development, diverted some of the funds to himself, and also diverted funds to the city's general fund. The comptroller is acting as financial adviser for a 2014 bond offering, which the SEC is trying to prevent through a court restraining order.

The action is based on the city's fiduciary duty to disclose to investors how bond proceeds will be used, as well as the risks associated with investing in the city's bonds (but the term "fiduciary duty" is not actually used in the complaint). This is part of the SEC's promised crackdown on disclosure failures related to municipal bonds. Alternatively, the complaint alleges fraud and the making of false and misleading statements.