A Miscellany
It is common for ethics codes to allow respondents in ethics proceedings to waive confidentiality and make the proceeding public. This is what South Carolina governor Mark Sanford did, according to an article in The State back in August.
"Sanford said a public investigation is in
line with his support of open government. 'In
the continued spirit of a fair and transparent process, I am today
announcing that I'll be waiving confidentiality as the Ethics
Commission studies some of the allegations made in the press and by
political detractors. Our administration has nothing to hide,' Sanford
said. 'The truth will ultimately be laid out on that front.'"
But now that the legislature is threatening to
begin impeachment proceedings in January, the governor isn't so sure he
likes transparency or that he has nothing to hide. According to an
article yesterday in The State, the state supreme court has asked the
state ethics commission to make an argument why it can release a
preliminary investigation report to the legislature.
Not to the public,
mind you, but the legislature, because normally only prosecutors have a
right to see an investigation report. But even this is too much for the governor, who is now arguing
that the legislature in its role as impeacher is not a prosecutor and
has no right to see the investigation report.
But didn't the governor waive his right to
confidentiality? Didn't he say he had nothing to hide? From anyone?
Dealing with the Conflict of Council Members Working for City-Funded Nonprofits
According to an article in the Kansas City Kansan, the Unified Government Board of Commissioners amended the city/county's ethics code to prohibit a nonprofit agency from receiving public funding (unified funding or a pass-through from the state or the federal government) if a representative from the Unified Government works for the organization or business.
This is an unusual provision, and there was
much opposition to it, but it deals with an important, recurring
problem. Council members often work for local nonprofits, and even if
they recuse themselves when the funding comes up for a vote, it is
almost impossible for there not to be extra support for the funding
from colleagues as well as an appearance of impropriety (e.g., pulling strings behind the scenes).
But this provision does not appear to deal
with the situation where the representative sits on a nonprofit board.
The difference is that, in such a case, the representative is not even indirectly
benefitting financially. But it is still a favored charity of the
official, and there is still an appearance of impropriety.
Should local
nonprofits be favored by elected officials? Should elected officials
help certain local nonprofits and not others? This is extremely common,
but should government officials favor agencies they fund? Is it that
much different from favoring contractors, especially where, as with
nonprofits, there is no competitive bidding process?
Government Ethics Meets Social Media and Blogs in Seattle
According to an article in the Seattle Times yesterday, the Seattle council is considering a draft policy for use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) by council members. It is currently being looked at by the city's ethics commission.
The draft policy is well conceived and
written. It deals with such issues as equal access (where membership is
required), open meetings issues (e.g., council members
communicating via social media could constitute a meeting), records
retention, content rules for comments on council members' sites or
blogs, and letting the public know that what they write is open to
public disclosure.
Seattle also has an official Blog Use Policy,
which includes many of the same issues, as well as content
restrictions, identification requirements, and the like.
Leave it to Seattle to be at the forefront of
web government ethics
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---