While so many local governments don't take conflicts seriously enough
to require recusal, some take conflicts too seriously, and overreact.
This appears to be what happened in Elizabethtown (NY), according to an
article in yesterday's Press-Republican.
According to an
article in the Palm Beach Daily News, Florida law "forbids
government bodies from advocating for voters to vote yes or no in a
referendum election, and from spending funds to advertise for that
purpose." But as with all laws, there are ways to end-run this
prohibition, and the town of Palm Beach's council and city attorney
found a way.
The business coalition in Palm Beach County (FL) really gets it. One
reason is that City Ethics' Carla Miller has provided advice. The
coalition consists of Leadership Palm Beach County, the Palm Beach
County Business Forum, the Palm Beach County Economic Council, and the
Voters Coalition. Its positions are best stated in a short essay
available at the League of Women Voters of Palm Beach County site.
Local government officials often defend halfway ethics reforms by
saying that they're just the beginning, and that something is better
than nothing. But halfway reforms are often effectively little more
than nothing, especially in the area of enforcement. "Window dressing"
is one term for such reforms. "Paper tiger" is
another.
Yesterday, I wrote a blog post about intimidation, but I forgot to
mention what might be the greatest fear among citizens relating to their
local government: the fear that if they speak out against local
officials, especially school officials, it will affect their school-age
children.
When it comes to conflicts of interest, is a local government
attorney primarily an attorney or a local government official? I
would answer this question, "Definitely an official." But recently
the New Jersey Supreme Court answered this question, "Definitely an
attorney." In fact, had the attorney been an administrator, the
opinion suggests, the court's decision would have been different.
A conflict controversy in Benson, Arizona shows how important
participation can be where there is a conflict, even when an official
does not vote. According to an
article in the San Pedro Valley News-Sun, the mayor was in escrow
to purchase property for which he was seeking to (and successfully did)
reduce the time (from six to two months) for rezoning from residential
to business. After doing this, he did not vote on the matter.
One of the things that always fascinates me is that, while politicians have no problem asking experts legal, financial,
engineering, or human resource questions, they feel they know what
they need to know about government ethics questions.
One of the most damaging aspects of ethical misconduct in government
is that it decreases the amount of citizen participation in
government activities. People feel that their local government is
rigged to help politicians and their families, friends, and business
associates. It's not worth spending time getting involved in a
rigged system, unless your goal is to be part of the in crowd.
One nearly untouchable aspect of government ethics is the role of parties.
This is less a problem in municipalities than at other levels of government, because most municipalities in the U.S. are nonpartisan, although parties still play a role. But many municipalities and, in some states, particularly in the Northeast, all municipalities are still partisan. And most counties are partisan, as well.
In many cases, partisanship and local government are hard to separate.
Quick. What's the biggest government ethics problem?
Did you say deducting union membership dues from government paychecks?
If you didn't, you are clearly not an Republican Alabama state senator.
When you think of double-dipping, do you think of a mayor also
acting as a state representative, or someone holding a government job
while getting a government pension? If you do, you are clearly not an
Republican Alabama official. They appear more concerned about teachers holding
elected office, a problem that keeps us up late at night.
I was reminded today that Sen. Arlen Specter, who recently switched
from the Republican party to the Democratic party, voted against Elena
Kagan's appointment as solicitor-general. He now appears likely to support her
appointment to the Supreme Court. This raised the issue in my
mind: is it
ever right for an elected official to vote on an appointment on purely
partisan grounds?
Is the partisanship of local government elections a government ethics
issue? I think it is, partly.
The story that sparked my thoughts about this was one from
today's New York Times about Mayor Bloomberg's second attempt to
turn New York City elections from partisan to nonpartisan.
This is the place to share your experiences with and thoughts about problems faced in passing or improving municipal ethics codes, and possible solutions to these problems.
For a year and a half, in her Law of the
Land blog, Patricia
Salkin has been writing about local government ethics issues in
land use cases. And since December 2008, she has been writing
occasional local government
ethics posts for the International Municipal Lawyers Association
Local Government Blog.
See Update Below
At a University of
Washington panel on Thursday, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, known most recently for
his investigation and arrest of Gov. Blagojevich, spoke about
corruption in government and what can be done about it.
Patronage involves a conflict between one's obligation to the public to hire the most competent person for each job, and one's political obligation to reward those who help oneself or one's colleagues get elected. Most ethics codes ignore this conflict. Please share your thoughts on its inclusion, as well as your experiences with patronage and attempts to control it.