Gifts from restricted sources, that is, from those doing business with the local government (and their lobbyists), are exceptionally damaging, in that they make the public believe their officials can be bought or that their officials are running a pay-to-play government. It's too bad that at least some members of the Los Angeles ethics commission don't recognize this.

Here's a good followup to yesterday's blog post about a conflict of interest in Tucson. In that post, I argued that annual financial disclosure makes it clear that an official's basic interests are public information, and said, "The goal of annual disclosure is to let the public know about an official's basic interests, so that if the official does participate in a matter where he has an interest, the public (usually an ethics commission, the news media, or a gadfly) can stop him from doing so."

In Tucson, there don't appear to be annual financial disclosure requirements. There are, however, financial disclosure requirements throughout California. According to an article in the North County Times, a Vista City (CA) council member failed to disclose a loan from a developer who was trying to get the city to let him hook into its sewage treatment system. After the council member voted to allow the developer's request, the loan came to light. Now, the other four council members are asking him to resign.

There is no greater pleasure for some people than accusing ethics professionals and ethics commission members of unethical behavior. That is why ethics professionals and ethics commission members have to be extra careful about what they do, and why individuals who have not dealt responsibly with conflicts of interest, at least in the recent past, should not accept a nomination to an ethics commission.

What no one wants to read is what is being written about the current chair of the Florida Commission on Ethics, which has jurisdiction over local government officials and employees. This week, New Times blogger Bob Norman wrote that the EC chair, appointed in 2007, had no-bid work orders from the then Broward assistant school superintendent from 2004-2006 totaling $75,000, marked with "bid waiver," although there was allegedly no formal approval from the school board.

In March I wrote a blog post about a situation in La Crosse, Wisconsin where the mayor brought his father, who runs a refuse business, to meet with a county official about a county solid waste assessment. A council member sought advice from the city attorney rather than the city ethics board, and then the mayor said he would put the matter before the ethics board. His father's company has a refuse contract with the mayor's city.

First Ask for an Advisory Opinion That Doesn't Match the Facts
But according to a La Crosse Tribune article in May, the mayor asked the ethics board "whether it's appropriate to participate in discussions regarding a business he isn't employed by and doesn't have an ownership stake in." His request didn't mention the meetings with the county official, to which he brought his father. In other words, it was a request for advice on a hypothetical situation, when there was a different, real situation involved. This is extremely disingenuous, and the ethics board should have refused to give an opinion.

Update: August 2, 2010 (see below)

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.

According to a July 2 unpublished opinion by Judge Flanagan of the Washoe County (NV) district court, Carrigan v. Commission on Ethics of the State of Nevada (attached; see below), a city council member has a first amendment free speech right to vote where there is not "an actual, existing conflict of interest." (p. 13)

Due process also comes into play in the opinion:  "In the absence of an actual, existing conflict of interest, this Court finds it at odds with the aims of due process to deprive the citizens of the Fourth Ward of their representative voice on issues pertaining to the Project, effectively silencing their vote at the ballot box..." (p. 13)

The opinion's conclusion only mentions the first amendment, not due process, but the court does call the state ethics commission's unanimous opinion "based on an improper purpose" and "arbitrary and capricious" due to its violation of the council member's first amendment rights.

I think it is important to consider the court's arguments in this case, particularly the extent to which conflict of interest laws deprive constituents of their voices. It's also important to understand the limits of the opinion, both in terms of the odd Nevada conflict language and the facts of the case.