Updates: August 24 and 26, 2010 (see below)

For those who, like me, believe that neither a mayor nor a local legislative body nor a city attorney has any business getting involved in the government ethics process, here's an example you can use of the mess they can make when they do get involved.

In a recent blog post, I wrote about a federal third circuit decision that a law prohibiting an ethics complainant from announcing the filing of the complaint violates the complainant's first amendment rights. This decision contradicts a second circuit decision that upheld a law prohibiting the announcing of the filing of a judicial ethics complaint.

In this light, the brand new Utah legislative ethics complaint procedures statute flies in the face not only of the first amendment, but also of reason. Here's the relevant section:

I hate to see people resign with statements such as this, as typical as they are:

While I have been assured that I have violated no existing code, ordinance or statute, I cannot permit my integrity — and, by insinuation, Councilwoman Hermann’s — to be attacked.

Sadly, these are the words of a former Kansas City (MO) ethics commission member, according to an article in the Kansas City Star. The EC member had given a contribution to a mayoral candidate, and it became controversial, even though there is no rule barring campaign contributions from EC members.

I recently wrote a blog post about a false statements in elections law in Ohio, and the problems with enforcing such laws. I have often written about the problems with self-enforcement of ethics laws. In the Wisconsin case of a state supreme court justice's misrepresentations in an election ad, the two have come together, big-time. The result is far more injurious, even crippling, to public trust in the judiciary than the original misrepresentations.

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.

When it comes to government ethics, too often lawyers are nowhere to be seen, unless they are the ones saying that unethical conduct is legal. Far too often, lawyers do not use their knowledge, their strong, independent personalities, and their professional obligations to stand up to, or at least question, those acting unethically.

A horrible example of this, a cautionary tale that every law student should read in the first year, occurred when all the lawyers in the system (and other professionals, as well) did nothing to stop thousands of juveniles from being tried without counsel and wrongfully sent to detention centers in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (see my blog post on this situation).

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Conduct's final report on the criminal and unethical conduct of the Luzerne County juvenile court was published a month ago, and it is painful, but important reading.