On April 30, the D.C. ethics board reached a settlement with a council member (attached; see below), whereby he was admonished for having "used the prestige of his office or his public position for the private gain" of a company by influencing health department personnel to leave the site of the business without issuing a notice of closure, allowing the business to continue to operate for several more hours.

Some important issues are raised in this matter, including (1) the line between constituent services and preferential treatment, (2) the appropriateness of a preferential treatment provision, (3) interventions of legislators and their staff in administrative matters; and (4) an ethics board's role in limiting or prohibiting constituent services.

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.

“The real issue is who’s giving money and real transparency. We’re going to do this in a way that’s above board. We’re each going to be contributing our ethical and moral standards that we have been living our lives by.”

—New Haven mayoral candidate Matthew Nemerson on why he's not going to participate in the New Haven Democracy Fund, one of the few municipal public campaign financing programs in the U.S. He says that instead he will make campaign contributions public within 48 hours of receipt (candidates participating in the Democracy Fund enter their contributions into the state's database, and they must be made public at least monthly during the campagn, and are searchable).

What is fascinating about this quote is that the usual personal moral standard line is used here with respect to public financing, as if we learn from our family and our house of worship whether it is more ethical to be quickly transparent (and how much, since we don't know if Nemerson will actually tell the public who works for a contractor, developer, lobbying firm, etc.) or to accept contribution and spending limits, as well as other restrictions that are part and parcel of a public financing program. For the record, I administered the program from its inception until last July. This quote is from a New Haven Independent article from a week ago.

Here are some more quotes from Nemerson, from a debate sponsored by Yale Democrats, taken from an Independent article from this week:

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.”

Phoenix has followed Chicago in taking a task force approach to ethics reform. As in Chicago, the mayor selected the task force. The Ethics Task Force, which according to an article in the Arizona Republic, consists of "prominent attorneys and judges," filed a report with the council on March 6. I have been unable to locate a copy of the report, but I did find a 5-page executive summary of the supposedly 20-page report (attached; see below).

Phoenix is one of the largest American cities without a government ethics program. It has limited ethics guidelines (see the city's ethics handbook); no ethics training, as far as I could tell; ethics advice from either the city attorney's office or from a committee consisting of the city attorney, the city auditor, and the city manager; disclosure only of conflicts in certain situations; and no enforcement process. In other words, there is a great deal of improvement that can be done.

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.