Some jurisdictions have an ethics provision entitled Prestige of
Office that, among other things, limits work that officials can do outside of government.
Here is the language that the Baltimore school district uses (this is
essentially the same as the city government's Prestige of Office provision, but with the addition of the phrase "public position," which turns it into a basic misuse of office provision):
An official may not intentionally use the prestige of office or
public position for the private gain of that official or the private
gain of another.
It's certainly a conflict of interest problem when prestige of office is used to make money through
public speaking or advertising ("The Pickup Your Mayor Prefers!").
But these situations can be handled by honararium
and endorsement provisions
. When a Prestige of Office provision is applied
to related work done on the side, as it has been in the Baltimore school district, the issue
I don't think that ethics programs should regulate
moonlighting. I think this is a personnel matter. It is a resource
issue more than it is a conflict of interest issue. Permission be
sought from the superintendent or a designee. Perhaps, for aggregate
annual work over a certain number of hours or certain amount of
income, school board permission should be sought. In any event, it's
worth looking at how a Baltimore prestige of office matter was