making local government more ethical
Partial withdrawal from participation is not a sufficient cure for an apparent conflict of interest. When there is any involvement, it can be seen as providing preferential treatment, as being unfair. Once again this is made clear, in the most controversial local government problem of the year:  a white police officer's killing of a black man in Ferguson, MO.

According to an article in Newsweek, the elected St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, is seen as especially sympathetic to the police. "His father was a St. Louis policeman killed in the line of duty by a black man when McCulloch was 12. His brother, nephew and cousin all served with the St. Louis police. His mother worked as a clerk for the force for 20 years. McCulloch would have joined the force too, but he lost a leg in high school due to cancer. 'I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,' he once said." He also spoke out (almost alone) in favor of a continuing role for the local police in the demonstrations that followed the killing.

According to an article yesterday in the Rockdale Citizen, Rockdale County, GA's county commission is having a debate on how to select its three-member ethics board and its alternates. Unfortunately, it's a debate that is being waged with no reference to best practices and almost no outside professional input. It's as if a debate about a construction project were to include little input from or reference to the work of engineers or planners. I point this out not because it is atypical, but because it is all too typical.

According to an editorial in the Orange County (CA) Register this week, Orange County citizens will soon vote on an initiative that would make their county the second one to turn its campaign finance program over to the state's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). But the initiative's wording calls the FPPC "the ethics commission," which causes confusion, because many in the county, including a recent grand jury (see my blog post on this) as well as past grand juries, have called for a local ethics commission to be formed.

The editorial points out that the initiative's language is misleading, because ethics commissions — and there are many good ones in California — do far more than enforce campaign finance laws.

An article today in the New York Times describes a situation that sheds light on pay to play. It involves the Westchester County (NY) county executive, who is getting special scrutiny because he is running for governor and has, throughout his career, as well as in this election, been openly critical of pay to play. He is being accused of hypocrisy, but it may just be that he does not really understand what pay to play is, why it is problematic, or how to prevent it.

According to critics, donors who have given the Westchester county executive $900,000 in campaign contributions over the last four years have received $709 million worth of county work. The executive's campaign "scoffed at any causality, noting that contracts must be competitively bid and approved by legislators."

According to an article Sunday on the Voice of OC website, the Orange County, CA legislative body has drafted a response to the second grand jury report in a year, which recommended the creation of a county ethics program "to monitor and enforce campaign finance and reporting and lobbyist reporting laws as well as other ethics laws and policies." The county board of supervisors wants to turn campaign finance enforcement over to the state ethics commission, and leave it at that.

The board's draft response asserts, “The effectiveness of the ‘ethics bodies’ is a matter of opinion and difficult to determine. The Grand Jury’s report did not provide any metrics or analysis to explain how ‘effectiveness’ of an ethics body is defined nor did they provide any evidence or examples of said effectiveness.”

In an article in the New York Times this Monday, the Robeson County (NC) district attorney described his predecessor's bullying ways, which are typical of those of an individual who heads a local fiefdom:
“He is a bully, and that’s the way he ran this office. People were afraid of him. Lawyers were afraid of him. They were intimidated by his tactics."