I've long said that conflicts of interest should not be limited to financial interests or, in other terms, situations where a possible financial benefit or loss is involved (see, for example, this 2009 blog post). My position is confirmed by the twisted yet necessary logic in a July 28 decision of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPCC), the state ethics body, with jurisdiction over state and local officials. And then the whole thing is undermined by wrongly allowing the use of a city attorney's advice as a defense.

In researching a recent ethics complaint in Harlingen, Texas (pop. 67,000), I came across some disturbing ethics matters. The most disturbing can be seen from the minutes of the city development corporation's September 29, 2009 meeting (pp. 3-4).

A failure to deal responsibly with one's conflicts of interest has ramifications beyond the loss of public trust, and all the serious problems that arise from this loss. This failure can also lead to litigation and the overturning of actions by local government officials.

A good example of this can be seen in the case of Rissler v. Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals, decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court on April 1 and reported on in the Law of the Land blog on July 9.

Abutting landowners appealed a decision of the Jefferson County board of zoning appeals, arguing that due process was lacking because two of the board members had a conflict, as well as the board attorney.

It's always exciting to find a local government official using a new argument in defense of his failure to follow local government ethics laws. So thanks to Steve Levy, the Suffolk County (NY) executive, for his argument that state financial disclosure requirements trump the county's financial disclosure requirements (the argument can be found in a Newsday article from Thursday).

There is nothing more important in local government ethics than timely, independent, professional ethics advice. And there is no bigger problem in local government ethics than poor ethics advice, especially that given by local government attorneys who (1) do not have a full understanding of government ethics, especially the fact that its rules are minimum requirements, which means that a strict interpretation of the language is inappropriate in providing ethics advice, (2) are political appointees and/or people with an ongoing relationship with the official, and will therefore be viewed as helping the official get away with possibly unethical conduct, and/or (3) act as if they are representing the official rather than the position or the agency or the local government.

A situation in the city of Alameda, CA once again points out that government officials dealing with the possibly unethical conduct of other government officials is not a good thing.

According to an article today in the San Francisco Chronicle, the city of Alameda asked the city's outside counsel to investigate whether a council member had disclosed confidential information to a developer and others against the interests of the city, and had effectively held a council meeting via e-mail in contravention of the state's open meetings law. And yesterday the counsel's report was made public by the city council, and the matter was turned over to the D.A.'s office.