Safra Working Papers

Congressmen and -women sometimes act as if they didn't know the first thing about government ethics. Even when their actions are more in the public eye than usual, many of them unnecessarily, and selfishly, do the wrong thing. This week, Congress seems to be all about Roger Clemens, who is definitely of more interest than health care, the economy, or Iraq. And what did 25 of the 40 members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform do before providing oversight over Roger Clemens?

Government officials should, I think, focus more on what their actions teach Americans. In effect, each of them is teaching an ongoing civics course.

For many years, Congress have been giving us a course on how self-regulation in the ethics sphere simply doesn't work.

Agency consolidation seems to be the buzzword this year. The ostensible reason is to save money and use government resources more efficiently. But is this really the principal reason?

On April 30, the D.C. ethics board reached a settlement with a council member (attached; see below), whereby he was admonished for having "used the prestige of his office or his public position for the private gain" of a company by influencing health department personnel to leave the site of the business without issuing a notice of closure, allowing the business to continue to operate for several more hours.

Consultants are an in-between group. They're not officials or employees, nor are they people who do business with the city. They advise or sometimes act for the city, and have access to confidential information as well as special relations with city staff. Please share your thoughts about and experiences with the inclusion of consultants in an ethics program.

100(17).

There is a lot of disagreement over whether contingency fee arrangements between client and lobbyist should be permitted. Many cities, counties, and states prohibit arrangements where lobbyists are paid only if they succeed. The principal reason is that this arrangement encourages ethical misconduct. It encourages lobbyists to do everything they can to win, which may be good in a private adversary suit, but is not appropriate in a public context, where winning involves changes in public policy or obtaining public contracts, grants, or permits.

The situation discussed in the previous blog entry also provides a good example of why it is important to have a contract avoidance provision in a local government ethics code. Here is the one in the City Ethics Model Code:

Here's a good way to get around local government transparency laws. If you want an appointee's activities to remain secret, let him be hired by a private entity, give money to the private entity sufficient to pay his salary, and don't communicate with him via government-owned computers or smartphones.

Contracting is one of the municipal ethics issues that is most often overlooked as an ethics issue. One reason is that the laws governing competitive bidding are often at the state level. Another is that municipal competitive bidding laws often appear outside codes of ethics (often because they are state mandated).

In Saybrook, IL, two members of both a sportman's club and a village board of trustees resigned their sportman's club membership so they would have no conflict voting on annexation of the club by the village. According to a letter to the editor of the Bloomington Pantagraph, the two members reserved their right to rejoin the club after the annexation issue was dealt with. Does resigning like this negate any conflict of interest?

Here's an ethics story from Orlando with a good ending. It emphasizes what I wrote recently, that government ethics involves dealing responsibly with conflict situations.

The big news this week on the government ethics front is Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens' conviction on seven counts of making false statements on financial disclosure forms, regarding home renovations paid for by an oil executive.

The former chair of the Venice in Peril Fund wrote a disturbing piece for the September 25 issue of the New York Review of Books about corruption in Venice. This corruption derived largely from a major project:  the building of flood protection barriers, known as MOSE. Although this project was larger than those in most cities, the misuse of funds, the failure to competitively bid, the false invoicing, the nepotism and the cronyism are no different.

This week, Linda Greenhouse pointed out, in a New York Times op-ed piece, that an April 14 decision by the D.C. Circuit could have an effect on campaign finance disclosure. It could have an effect on government ethics disclosure, as well.

A year ago, I wrote about New York City Council's earmark funds and the ways they were being abused. Atlanta's council members have a different sort of fund, not intended to help their constituents, but intended to help themselves.

Here's an odd ethics program rule. According to an article last week in the Advocate-Messenger, the Boyle County, KY ethics commission, which has jurisdiction over all the municipalities in the county, requires that a town council vote on whether a matter may be referred to the ethics commission.

Without giving it any thought, it would be hard to think of a better fit than a city politician running the local chamber of commerce. After all, the goals of a chamber of commerce and of a city government are pretty much the same:  security, good government, good services, low taxes.

Earmarks are usually dealt with as a spending and democracy problem. All that money being thrown away on projects no one actually votes to fund. But earmarks are also a conflict of interest issue, as can be seen in what has come out regarding the New York City Council. I recently wrote about the transparency aspect of the Council’s hidden earmarks.

Many local legislative bodies have ethics committees, even where there is an ethics commission. The reason for these self-regulatory committees is that these bodies have their own codes of conduct that go beyond conflicts of interest, and which are enforced, discussed, and amended separate from the city or county's ethics program. Some local ethics programs consist of nothing more than a council ethics committee and code of conduct, but that situation is not the topic of this blog post.

If you want to encourage unethical behavior, give individual officials independent power over the sorts of decisions where people have the greatest incentive to tempt officials, and officials are in the best position to enforce pay-to-play.