A "placeholder" is someone who agrees to run on a ticket with a mayoral candidate or be appointed by him, but has no interest or intention in actually doing the work required by the position. Such a candidate does not attend many meetings of the body to which she was elected (often she is not even in town much of the year) and, when she does attend, is usually not prepared. When her support is needed, she will sometimes read a short speech prepared for her by someone else.

One placeholder here or there is not too big a problem, but multiple placeholders on the same body can (1) lead to quorum problems, and (2) create the appearance that elected officials are simply rubber stamps for the mayor, and that real candidates, with their own opinions, need not apply, because one or both of the parties don't want them. This is demoralizing. Not only do citizens with opinions feel their service is not wanted by government. But when such citizens go to a public meeting, they find that, if they disagree with the ruling party's policy, there is no one from the ruling party who is listening and will openly discuss the issue. Instead, board members support moving to a vote as soon as possible, always, always, always voting the same as each other.

Is this a government ethics issue? I think it is. It involves a confusion of person and office. An official misuses his office if he continuously puts his personal obligations ahead of his public obligation to fulfill the duties of the office. It is only one's office to the extent one actively and responsibly does the work. If one does not or cannot, then one has to relinquish the office.

Most of George Frederickson's lecture, "Searching for Virtue in the Public Life: Revisiting the Vulgar Ethics Thesis," involves what he calls "the modern extended state," the "vast public sea" in which governments float. This public sea includes entities with various "shades of publicness":  nonprofit and professional organizations, contractors and developers, lobbying firms, political parties, unions (public, construction, and others), and watchdog groups, as well as single-purpose jurisdictions (school, water, transit, and sewer districts and authorities), public-private organizations of all sorts, charter schools, utilities and other public monopolies, tribes, and numerous quasi-governmental agencies.

One government ethics question that does not have a general answer is whether boards of education or school systems are under the jurisdiction of city or county ethics programs. The answer is sometimes, but generally not.

There are several reasons for this. One is that many, probably most school systems have different boundaries than cities and counties. Generally, these are regional, including all or parts of multiple cities, towns, and counties.

Intimidation is, I believe, the worst kind of ethical misconduct in government, because (1) it limits or changes participation of people in the democratic process, (2) it is emotionally damaging, and (3) it enables all sorts of ethical misconduct. Intimidation is a fundamental form of misuse of power and position. (For more about intimidation, see the section of my book on this topic.)

Intimidation is a clear sign of a poor ethics environment. When I first became involved, as a citizen, in my town's politics (we have a Town Meeting form of government, so the town's citizens are its legislators), I immediately met with intimidation from most of the top elected and appointed officials. And I saw how town employees were expected to go to Town Meetings and vote with the town's executive body. Were they personally intimidated? Most likely not. But did they feel as if they had no other choice? Most likely.

Is this sort of intimidation any less damaging when it is indirect, that is, when it is done not by officials but rather by those who seek benefits from these officials? I ask this question because, according to an article Wednesday in In These Times, presidential candidate Mitt Romney has told employers, "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections." And some employers have listened by telling their employees that, if President Obama is re-elected, their employer will be hurt and there will be layoffs.

It is important to bring contractors into an ethics program, requiring them to disclose gifts their employees make to officials, and to deal responsibly with possible conflicts they are aware of. Businesses tend to deal with such things internally. Bringing them into an ethics program requires them to recognize that dealing with conflict situations internally is not enough.

The fact is that most ethics programs do not place sufficient requirements on contractors. Often, ethics programs have no jurisdiction over them or no enforcement powers. This means that contractors have nothing to fear from dealing irresponsibly with conflict situations or even from making gifts to officials. Or it means that enforcement is left in the hands of officials, thereby politicizing enforcement.

The latter is what occurred in Chicago, according to an article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune. When, last week, the Tribune got hold of a letter mentioning an internal investigation of possible ethical misconduct by the employee of a company that has operated Chicago's red-light camera program since 2003 (the conduct involved a gift to the principal official overseeing that program), the city's chief procurement office quickly went to work, without handing the matter over the city's ethics board.

Update: October 10, 2012 (see below)

So far, I have ignored this year's most famous local ethics proceeding, against San Francisco sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. The reason I ignored it is the reason I am writing about it now:  I think the proceeding should have been dismissed because the sheriff's misconduct involved neither a conflict of interest nor his official duties.

The fact that the complaint was brought by the mayor against an opponent on the city's board of supervisors (the city council), who had just been elected sheriff, and the mayor has the power to remove someone found to have committed official misconduct, makes the case very sensitive politically. This means that it was even more important than usual that the EC be careful not to stretch its authority, or the application of the law, in any way that could make it appear that the EC was instrumental in helping the mayor get rid of an opponent.