What’s missing from new Jacksonville ethics office? Money

This Editorial ran in June after the passing of a comprehensive package of ethics reform bills in the Jacksonville City Coucil.

Ethics: This progress was historic

Posted:June 19, 2011

Jacksonville residents have this self-image that we have a progressive government. But consolidation was more than 40 years ago.

Update: The bill (2010-616) was passed unanimously by the Finance Committee on Tuesday, leaving it on the consent agenda for next Tuesday's full City of Jacksonville Council meeting: 11/23/2010 @ 5pm


There was an excellent editorial published in the Jacksonville Times Union on Saturday, Nov. 13th which focused on the City of Jacksonville's current legislation 2010-616 being considered by the City Council. It is designed to expand the powers of the city's Ethics Commission and to centralize the ethics office function for all of the authorities and the school board. You can read the full text of the editorial HERE.

Updates: August 4 and 9, 2010 (see below)
I was just saying to someone the other day that the worst offenses in local government ethics do not involve money. The worst offenses in local government ethics involve intimidation, which causes people to lose their peace of mind, their reputations, and the feeling that they may participate in their local government, things no amount of money can buy. And yet it is the rare ethics complaint or arrest that primarily involves intimidation. Well, this just happened yesterday, in Palm Beach County.

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: September 23, 2010 (see below)

Lack of transparency and voter indifference, especially relating to technical issues, are often considered minor issues not central to local government ethics. What happened the last few years in Bell, California (pop. 37,000; Los Angeles County) should make people think again about how central transparency and citizen participation are to preventing unethical conduct by local government officials.