An interesting issue has arisen in Louisiana. It involves an important distinction in government ethics, between law and function.

According to an AP article this weekend, the Louisiana Board of Ethics found that a state board of education member may keep both this position and her job as executive director of the New Orleans branch of Teach for America, even though Teach for America has a sizeable contract with the state board of ed and the law is that a board member cannot be an officer of an entity that has a contract with the board.

Ethics Code Amendment Without a Scandal
Sometimes conflict situations, when they are handled responsibly, lead to changes in an ethics code. This happened recently in Prince William County, Virginia, according to an article on the insidenova.com website.

A county supervisor wanted to give $100,000 of his discretionary funds to his wife’s charity project. Then he thought the matter through, and decided not to. But he didn't stop there. He presented an amendment to the county's conflict of interest policy that would prevent county supervisors from voting on any matter where the supervisor or an immediate family member had a direct conflict of interest, and on any matter where funding was directed to an organization on whose board the supervisor or family member sat.

A Complex School Board Conflict Situation
Should someone closely associated with an organization that has been awarded a sizeable preschool contract be prevented from sitting on a school board when the contract was not with the school board? That is one of the questions raised by an article this week in the Connecticut Post. The Bridgeport, CT school board member, a minister, was originally appointed by the state, but is running to retain his seat on a new, elected board. His opponents are questioning the propriety of his sitting on the board.

One of the things that really ticks citizens off is when a local official uses his position to try to get out of a traffic ticket. The financial benefit may be minor, but there are two things that are major. One is that this conduct suggests that favoritism is common in the government. That is, the expectation and provision of special treatment is an indication of institutional corruption.

The second thing that can be major is the benefit when the charge is not just speeding or going through a light, but driving while drunk, leaving the scene of an accident, or other sorts of conduct that can seriously affect an official's personal reputation in the community. An official's reputation in the community is far more valuable than the cost of any fine. And yet reputation is not only left out of most ethics codes, but often ignored by the official, government attorneys, and even ethics commissions when such conduct is discovered.

Take the latest case, involving an Allen County, IN council member. According to an article in the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel this weekend, an ethics complaint was filed against the council member, alleging that, when stopped by a sheriff's department officer, he called the county sheriff and, after the call, was allowed to leave without being subjected to a drunken driving test.

It's amazing how much local government ethics activity there is in this July. Here is a miscellany of issues that have arisen in just the last few days.

There is a great deal to be learned from the selection process for the new District of Columbia Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, which is effectively complete. Three weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about the nomination of Robert Spagnoletti to be chair of the new ethics board. I questioned this nomination of a former D.C. Attorney General (that is, city attorney), who had represented many high-level officials, and a present attorney who regularly represents clients seeking benefits from the District government. I also questioned the view of so many officials, as well as the press and good government organizations, that a former prosecutor makes an ideal ethics commission member.

When asked by the chair of a council committee to give testimony at a public hearing on Monday of this week, I thought further about this nomination and worked with Kathleen Clark, former special counsel to the current D.C. Attorney General, on what turned out to be an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, which appeared on Sunday (attached; see below).

This post will put what I learned from this process into a guide to the ethics commission selection process.