making local government more ethical

You are here

Model Code

All stories and pages related to the Model Code Project

This is the place to discuss another basic statement of conflict of interest, relating to how officials act toward city residents. Other codes use the language of "misuse of office." Please state your preferences and your experiences with both approaches.

100(5). Special Consideration

An official or employee* may not grant or receive, directly or indirectly, any special consideration, treatment, or advantage beyond what is generally available to city residents.

Comment: See the exception in the second sentence of subsection 6 below, which also applies here.

Some cities use the language of misuse of office (or of the "prestige" of office) here. I think it is unnecessary, but here is the IMLA Model Code version:

No public servants shall use or attempt to use their official positions improperly to unreasonably request, grant, or obtain in any manner any unlawful or unwarranted privileges, advantages, benefits or exemptions for themselves, or others, and no public servants shall use, or attempt to use, their positions to avoid the consequences of illegal acts for any person; nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit or discourage any public servant from performing any official duty or action zealously and enthusiastically.

Story Topics: 

This is the place to discuss limitations on gifts to officials and employees, and their family members. Probably no other aspect of ethics codes has so many different solutions. Please share your thoughts about and experiences with various attempts at solving this basic problem, and suggest language that you feel works well.

100(4). Gifts*

  1. An official or employee*, his or her spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, parent, or member of his or her household*, may not solicit nor accept anything of value from any person or entity that the official or employee knows, or has reason to believe, has received or sought a financial benefit*, directly or through a relationship with another person or entity, from the city within the previous three years, or intends to seek a financial benefit in the future. Nor may an official or employee solicit or accept anything of value from anyone, including but not limited to a gift*, loan, political contribution, award, or promise of future employment, based on an understanding that a vote, official action, or decision would be or had been influenced thereby.


    If in doubt, the official or employee should refrain from soliciting or refuse a gift, and should first inquire into the person or entity's relationship with the city. [or: If the official or employee does not know whether a person or entity fits this description, he or she should inquire and, if it is discovered that the person or entity does fit this description, the gift should be returned (or its monetary value if it cannot be returned) and no further gifts accepted during the relevant period.]
  2. Gifts of property, money, or services given nominally to the city must be accepted by a resolution of the legislative body.

Comment: The first sentence of subsection 4a is difficult, even if the language itself is not. Here it is broken down and explained:

    Who cannot accept or solicit gifts: An official or employee, his or her spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, parent, or member of his or her household*

    What a gift is: anything of value (see the definition at 113(5) and the exceptions in 102)

    Whom one cannot accept gifts from: any person or entity that has received or sought a financial benefit from the city within the previous three years, or that intends to seek a financial benefit in the future.

    Must the gift giver have directly received or sought a financial benefit from the city? No, it also counts if it sought a financial benefit through a relationship with someone or some entity

    What the official or employee must know about the gift giver's relationship with the city: he or she must know the gift giver's relationship with the city, or know enough that he or she has reason to believe that such a relationship may exist. If uncertain, the gift should be refused and questions asked.

With respect to higher officials and department heads, and for officials and employees who deal directly with contractors and permitees, a city might choose to prevent them from receiving any gifts at all, other than campaign contributions and gifts from close relatives.

Cities have taken a great variety of approaches to the gift problem. The approach here is to limit only gifts from people and entities that do business with or otherwise get financial benefits from the city, including permits, zoning approval, etc. Other common approaches are to limit the amount of gifts or to limit the type of gifts or the type of givers.

There are two principal goals here: (1) to give clear guidance to officials, employees, and potential gift givers; and (2) to ensure city residents that their public servants are not accepting gifts from people and businesses who might be trying to influence them, whether or not that is a purpose for the gift (since no one can ever know the purpose).

The choice of the above approach is intended to keep the process simple: if there is any question of the giver's relationship with the city, do not accept the gift. If there is any reason to believe there is an improper motive behind the gift, do not accept it. There are exceptions to this rule below (at 102), but they are few and essentially allow just a lunch or two each year.

Another approach to gift-giving is to require the annual disclosure of all gifts either by itself or in addition to prohibitions. This puts a great deal of pressure on the city's informal oversight resources (citizen and media), since such gifts would be out of the jurisdiction of official boards. Since party organizations provide the most effective informal oversight in most communities, depending on disclosure will politicize this part of the city's ethics process. Here is language for that approach:

Officials and employees must file with the Ethics Commission, on or before January 31, a list of all gifts received during the preceding calendar year by them or by their spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, parent, or member of their household, to the extent that the aggregate amount of gifts received from an individual or entity (including gifts from all employees, partners, or investors) during the year is $50 or greater. Information to be disclosed is as follows:

  1. the date the gift was received and who received it;
  2. a description of the gift;
  3. the fair market value of the gift;
  4. the name, address and employer of the person who provided the gift;
  5. the name of any organization or individual represented by the person or on whose behalf the person was acting in providing the gift.

Please provide language for alternative approaches, and provide arguments for and against approaches, as well as instances where certain approaches have worked or not worked, in terms of providing guidance as well as limiting questionable gift-giving.

Story Topics: 

This is the place to discuss recusal, that is, withdrawal from participation when there appears to be a conflict of interest. Also see Transactional Disclosure, in the "Disclosure" section, where this issue will also be discussed.

100(3). Recusal

  1. An official or employee* must refrain from acting on or discussing, formally or informally, a matter before the city, if acting on the matter, or failing to act on the matter, may personally* or financially benefit* any of the persons or entities listed in subsection 1 of this section. Such an official or employee should join the public if the recusal occurs at a public meeting, or leave the room if it is not a public meeting.
  2. An official or employee must refrain from acting or discussing, formally or informally, a matter involving a person who appointed or recommended him or her for that position, if he or she is aware of such appointment or recommendation.
  3. If a board or agency member is requested to recuse himself or herself with respect to a matter, for the reason that he or she has a conflict of interest, by

    1. another member,
    2. a party to the current matter, or
    3. anyone else who may be affected by a decision relating to this matter, the member must decide whether to recuse himself or herself.

    If the member decides not to recuse himself or herself, the unchallenged members must consider any relevant evidence concerning such claimed conflict of interest, as defined in this code, and vote whether or not to allow the request and require that the member refrain from participating in the matter.

  4. Rule of Necessity: If recusal would leave a board with less than a quorum capable of acting, or if the official or employee* is the only person authorized by law to act, the official or employee* must disclose the nature and circumstances of the conflict to the Ethics Commission and ask for an advisory opinion pursuant to 104 and 209.

Comment: "Acting on and discussing, formally or informally" means that the official should withdraw from any involvement with the matter, including conversations, appearances at meetings or portions of meetings concerned with the matter, and voting on the matter, except, of course, in a public referendum.

Sometimes inaction benefits an official or his or her close associates - for example, when a code enforcement official fails to cite her brother for a zoning violation. That is why this subsection prohibits an official's inaction, as well as action, in certain circumstances. In such an instance, the enforcement official should ask someone else to handle the matter.

See 101 for provisions concerned with the disclosure of a conflict pursuant to this subsection. Because disclosure in this sort of situation occurs at the time a conflict becomes immediately relevant to an action or transaction to be taken by an official or employee, this is referred to as "transactional disclosure."

Story Topics: 

This is the place to discuss the special situation of legislators who are employed by the city, or have members of their household who are employed by the city, and how to handle this conflict.

100(2). Legislators Employed by City

A member of the legislative body has a conflict of interest with respect to any labor contract to which he or she, or a member of his or her household*, may be a party, and with respect to an appropriation to any city department or agency through which he or she, or a member of his or her household, is employed.

Comment: Some cities require that there be no incompatible or even multiple offices held by an individual, especially a council member, so that this problem could only arise with respect to members of the household. In towns and small cities, it is more difficult to make such requirements, because there are sometimes too few competent and interested people to go around. Also, recusal can take care of instances such as those described in this subsection. But explicit restrictions in this area, especially in large cities, can be valuable.

Story Topics: 

This is the place to discuss what a conflict of interest is, and how close or what type of a relationship an official or employee must have with an individual or entity that has an interest, for that interest to be seen as conflicting with that official or employee's obligations to the public interest.

This is also the place to discuss certain conflict provisions missing from this code (such as outside employment), which are discussed in the comments to this subsection.

100(1). Conflict of Interest.

An official or employee* may not use his or her official position or office, or take or fail to take any action, or influence others to take or fail to take any action, in a manner which he or she knows, or has reason to believe, may result in a personal* or financial benefit*, not shared with a substantial segment of the city's population, for any of the following persons or entities:

  1. himself or herself;
  2. a member of his or her household*, including a domestic partner* and his or her dependents, or the employer or business of any of these people;
  3. a sibling or step-sibling, step-child, parent or step-parent, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt, or grandparent or grandchild of either himself or herself, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner, or the employer or business of any of these people;
  4. an outside employer or business* of his or hers, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner, or someone who works for such outside employer or business;
  5. a customer* or client*;
  6. a person or entity from whom the official or employee* has received an election campaign contribution of more than $200 in the aggregate during the past election cycle (this amount includes contributions from a person's immediate family or business as well as contributions from an entity's owners, directors, or officers, as well as contributions to the official or employee*'s party town committee or non-candidate political committee);
  7. a substantial debtor or creditor of his or hers, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner; or

  8. a nongovernmental civic group, union, social, charitable, or religious organization of which he or she (or his or her spouse or domestic partner) is an officer or director.

Comment: The central point of an ethics code is that city officials and employees should not prefer, over the public interest, their own interests or the interests of their family or business associates. There are other relationships that should be included in the above list, but cannot due to problems of defining them. These include romantic relationships short of domestic partnership, and close friends and associates.

The general rule is: If it looks to others as if you might be giving someone special treatment, or if it would look that way to others if they knew about the relationship, then you should not act with respect to that person or entity, and instead recuse yourself under subsection 3 below. It is important to give city residents confidence that their officials and employees are treating everyone the same, even when you believe that you can be totally impartial.

The most common way to define conflict of interest is as follows: No person subject to this code shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business, employment, transaction or professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her public duties or employment. However, most government officials and employees do, on occasion, have conflicting interests. The important thing is not for them to prevent them, but rather to manage them honestly and responsibly, that is, to disclose them and to not act where there is such a conflict, no matter how impartial they feel they can be. What matters is not whether one can still act with integrity, but whether one will be perceived that way. It should be noted that even voting or making a decision against a friend or relative, in order not to seem partial, is not acting impartially, because the reason for the vote or decision is wrong: it might actually be better or more fair to vote or decide in favor of the friend.

The one thing the common approach contains which does not appear in this model code is a prohibition of outside employment where there is not a conflict with a particular government interest, but instead with the general government interest in "the proper discharge of an employee or official's duties" (a term that, by the way, is too vague to allow for enforcement). Outside employment does not only lead to conflicts of interest as defined in this code, but also interferes with doing one's job by affecting the official or employee's time, energy, and focus. Volunteers are expected to have other jobs, and it is not fair to prevent low-paid employees from having evening, weekend, or holiday jobs, but many cities have rules limiting the amount and type of outside employment. Please contribute outside employment provisions which you feel are just (or unjust), enforceable or unenforceable, and explain why. Such provisions should include procedural requirements, for example, applying for formal, written permission from one's supervisor or department head (including disclosure of any officials, employees, or contractors involved), and the written acceptance of limitations on time and place of outside employment.

There is also nothing in this model code about incompatible positions in government and parties, that is, holding legislative and administrative positions, for example, especially where one office has the power to remove or affect the other's budget; or multiple administrative positions that stretch an official or employee too thin; or non-governmental positions that can have a great effect on government, for example, a department head who is an officer of a local political party, posing a question about his or her responsibility to all citizens vs. to party members, as well as putting him in a position of affecting who his boss will be, come the next election. Often such rules do not appear in ethics codes (often they appear in the city charter), but because they do involve conflicts of interest, they should at least be included by reference. Please say how your municipality deals with this problem, or how you think it should be dealt with.

Another common conflict provision is as follows: No person subject to this code shall accept other employment which will either impair his or her independence of judgment as to his or her public duties or employment or require or induce him or her to disclose confidential information acquired by him or her in the course of and by reason of his or her official duties. What does it mean to have a job that impairs one's independence of judgment, or a job that induces or requires one to disclose confidential information? And how could it be proven that particular employment could do this? Again, this sort of provision focuses on the conflict rather than on the improper management of the conflict. It is true that a developer should not be on a zoning board, nor should a contractor be in charge of a city's purchases, at least in the relevant area. But in and of themselves, these are not violations of the public trust (so long as they recuse themselves when appropriate; but if that is very often, they are not fulfilling the obligations of their position); they are examples of seriously poor judgment on the individual's part as well as on the part of those who nominated or appointed that individual. In addition, when a developer sits on a zoning board, it is a sign of a poor ethics environment, whose leaders have not spoken out against so severe a conflict. Cities may want to add a provision like the following to deal with this situation:

The recusal provisions of 100(3) do not permit an official or employee to make use of recusal on a regular basis. If recusal occurs with such frequency as to give the appearance of impropriety, the official or employee is deemed to have violated the provisions of this code.

Comment: An official or employee who is forced to recuse himself or herself on a regular basis should resign from his or her position. This should also be taken into account when a position is accepted.

Another approach to conflicts of interest is to deem something a conflict only to the extent that an interest is not disclosed and the official or employee participates in the matter. This approach recognizes that ignoring a conflict is the principal problem. Such an approach can be combined with defining "conflict of interest" as doing or not doing much of what appears in 100 of this model code, as it is, for example, in Kings County (Seattle), Washington. This makes it clear that the central concept of a conflict of interest takes many forms, but it also limits conflict to particular instances, in effect, saying that all other conflicts are acceptable.

New Haven, Connecticut enumerates several examples of conflicts of interest, as well as several exceptions. This is unusual, but if done thoughtfully and responsibly (being careful not to make the examples exclusive), it can provide clear guidance. The best place for such examples is, however, not in the code itself, but in explanatory guidelines on the city website or in pamphlet form. Here is what New Haven lists:

Sec. 12 5/8-6. Exception to the conflict of interest provisions.

The following situations shall not constitute a conflict of interest under section 209 of the Charter of the City of New Haven:

  1. Where a municipal employee or public official is employed by a person who enters into a contract with the City of New Haven, where said employee or public official is not directly involved in the procurement, preparation, or performance of such contract and whose remuneration is not, directly or indirectly, derived from said contract;
  2. If the municipal employee or public official is employed by any newspaper which publishes any municipal notice, resolution, ordinance or other proceeding where such publication is required or authorized by law;
  3. If the municipal employee or public official is employed by a public utility that furnishes public utility services to the City of New Haven when the rates or charges therefor are fixed or regulated by the public utilities control authority;
  4. If the municipal employee or public official is employed by a person or business which has a contract with the City of New Haven if the total consideration thereunder, when added to the aggregate amount of all consideration payable under contracts in which said employee or public official has an interest during a calendar year does not exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).

Sec. 12 5/8-7. Examples of an interest requiring disclosure.

In accordance with article XXIII, section 210, of the Charter of the City of New Haven, interests requiring disclosure shall include, but not be limited to the following:

  1. Where a member of the immediate family of a member of a board, commission or task force is employed by the City of New Haven;
  2. Where a member of a board, commission or task force is employed by a nonmunicipal agency the funding of which is, in part or in its entirety, provided by funds authorized by the City of New Haven;
  3. Where a member of a board, commission or task force serves on the board of directors or governing board of a nonprofit organization when said organization is engaged in the application of federal, state or local funding authorized by the City of New Haven;
  4. Where a member of a board, commission or task force serves on the board of directors or governing board of a nonprofit organization when said organization is lobbying for specific legislation before the City of New Haven or when said organization is lobbying for specific State of Connecticut legislation which will result in the city receiving funding which is controlled by the city board, commission or task force of which the individual is a member;
  5. Where a member of a board, commission or task force serves on the board of directors or governing board of a nonprofit organization when said organization is engaged in litigation against the City of New Haven;

  6. Where a member of a board, commission or task force accepts an offer of employment, whether paid or unpaid, by the City of New Haven or by a program recommended by said task force but has not yet resigned or retired from said board, commission or task force to accept said offer of employment;
  7. Where a municipal employee or public official has a financial or personal interest in a contract which was entered prior to the time of his nomination, appointment, election or employment to said position, so long as said contract is not renewed, amended or modified subsequent to his assuming public office;
  8. Where an employee or public official seeks or obtains employment with a person, company or corporation engaged in business with the City of New Haven but has not yet resigned his position assume said employment;
  9. Where an employee or public official applies for a city program or benefit over which he has control, influence or discretionary authority.
Story Topics: 

In detailing aspirational ethics -- that is, ethical conduct that will not be enforced by the Ethics Commission -- this Model Code goes a step beyond a declaration of policy and purpose. It includes the full text of the American Society for Public Administration's aspirational ethics code. Below is the ASPA Code and introductory comments about its inclusion in the Model Code.

Please comment on the value of including this aspirational code in an ethics code, and share any experience you have had with aspirational ethics codes.

There is more to ethical conduct than what is covered by this code, which consists primarily of enforceable rules about conflicts of interest. The city must also provide a healthy ethical environment with positive means of encouraging ethical behavior among its public servants. And individuals - especially community leaders - must commit themselves to thinking and acting ethically.

Ethical conduct depends on thinking about one's acts not in terms of what is politically popular, best for oneself and one's colleagues, or even most effective and efficient, but in terms of what is in the best interests of the city. Ethics is not just about enforceable rules, but also about democratic ideals and aspirational goals. Central to ethical action is respect for city residents (treating them as ends rather than as means) as well as self-respect (integrity, expecting the best of oneself).

There are expectations placed on those who govern and administer our city's government, there are values to which our city's officials and employees aspire, and there are obligations that our city's officials and employees accept when they take their jobs or offices. This is especially true of elected officials and department heads, because they have accepted more responsibility for the decisions that are made.

The American Society for Public Administration's (ASPA) Code of Ethics is an excellent list of a government administrator's obligations, based on values rather than job description. These are the obligations our government leaders should be reinforcing and to which individuals should be committing themselves. The ASPA Code is especially valuable because it is not the work of ethics specialists, but of government administrators themselves. These obligations will not be enforced by the Ethics Commission, because they are difficult to define concretely enough so that they can be enforced.* However, these values and obligations should be expected and aspired to in our city. Anyone who has questions about these values and obligations may seek clarification from the Ethics Commission as to how they apply them to specific situations.

The American Society for Public Administration's (ASPA) Code of Ethics is an excellent list of a government administrator's obligations, based on values rather than job description. These are the obligations our government leaders should be reinforcing and to which individuals should be committing themselves. The ASPA Code is especially valuable because it is not the work of ethics specialists, but of government administrators themselves. These obligations will not be enforced by the Ethics Commission, because they are difficult to define concretely enough so that they can be enforced.* However, these values and obligations should be expected and aspired to in our city. Anyone who has questions about these values and obligations may seek clarification from the Ethics Commission as to how they apply them to specific situations.

* Note that the ASPA code is intended for unelected administrators, so that the provision requiring nonpartisanship should not be applied to elected officials who belong to political parties. On the other hand, the most basic conflict of interest in government (accepted as it is by our democratic process) is between the public interest and the interest of elected officials in getting re-elected.



American Society for Public Administration

Code of Ethics


I. Serve the Public Interest

  • Exercise discretionary authority to promote the public interest.
  • Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, and promote affirmative action.
  • Recognize and support the public's right to know the public's business.
  • Involve citizens in policy decision-making.
  • Exercise compassion, benevolence, fairness, and optimism.
  • Respond to the public in ways that are complete, clear, and easy to understand.
  • Assist citizens in their dealings with government.
  • Be prepared to make decisions that may not be popular.

II. Respect the Constitution and the Law

  • Understand and apply legislation and regulations relevant to their professional role.
  • Work to improve and change laws and policies that are counterproductive or obsolete.
  • Eliminate unlawful discrimination.
  • Prevent all forms of mismanagement of public funds by establishing and maintaining strong fiscal and management controls, and by supporting audits and investigative activities.
  • Respect and protect privileged information.
  • Encourage and facilitate legitimate dissent activities in government and protect the whistle-blowing rights of public employees.
  • Promote constitutional principles of equality, fairness, representativeness, responsiveness, and due process in protecting citizens' rights.

III. Demonstrate Personal Integrity

  • Maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise them for advancement, honor, or personal gain.
  • Ensure that others receive credit for their work and contributions.
  • Zealously guard against conflict of interest or its appearance: e.g., nepotism, improper outside employment, misuse of public resources, or the acceptance of gifts.
  • Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues, and the public.
  • Take responsibility for their own errors.
  • Conduct official acts without partisanship.

IV. Promote Ethical Organizations

  • Enhance organizational capacity for open communication, creativity, and dedication.
  • Establish procedures that promote ethical behavior and hold individuals and organizations accountable for their conduct.
  • Provide organization members with an administrative means for dissent, assurance of due process, and safeguards against reprisal.
  • Promote merit principles that protect against arbitrary and capricious actions.
  • Promote organizational accountability through appropriate controls and procedures.
  • Encourage organizations to adopt, distribute, and periodically review the code of ethics as a living document.

V. Strive for Professional Excellence

  • Provide support and encouragement to upgrade competence.
  • Accept as a personal duty the responsibility to keep up to date on emerging issues and potential problems.
  • Encourage others, throughout their careers, to participate in professional activities and associations. Allocate time to meet with students and provide a bridge between classroom studies and the realities of public service.
  • This code is enacted pursuant to [Section ____] of [state statutes] and is not intended to authorize any conduct prohibited by that section.

    Comment: It is helpful to list other municipal and state ethics-related laws here, or reference a supplement containing them, so that all ethics laws are available in one place. In this way, people will not have to search for them or worry if they have missed any rules or exceptions. It is also helpful for authors of ethics laws to consult all other relevant laws, so that there will not be any contradictions.

    Here are the citations in the Connecticut model code I wrote, including only references to state law: "The power to adopt an ethics code is provided in 7-148(c)(10)(b). There are some specific conflict of interest rules in 7-148t. Allegations, confidentiality, and probable cause findings are provided for in 1-82a. A business with which an official or employee is associated is defined in 1-79(b). And the Freedom of Information Act can be found in Chapter 14, 1-200 to 1-242."

    Why freedom of information? Because it involves one of the most often abused conflicts of interest: between the public's right to know and the municipal official's desire to keep information hidden, for personal or political reasons (it's much easier to do one's job in secret than in the public eye; it is especially easier to act unethically when acting in secret). In fact, it would be completely appropriate for a municipal ethics code to supplement the Freedom of Information Act in areas that have been problems in a particular city. For example, an ethics code could include longer notice requirements for meetings and agendas, shorter periods in which to provide information (as well as lower reproduction costs), and requirements for notice and the placement of information on the city website.

Story Topics: 

Pages