Safra Working Papers

There is no greater pleasure for some people than accusing ethics professionals and ethics commission members of unethical behavior. That is why ethics professionals and ethics commission members have to be extra careful about what they do, and why individuals who have not dealt responsibly with conflicts of interest, at least in the recent past, should not accept a nomination to an ethics commission.

Last week, Wisconsin taught us the lesson that even when you go to great lengths to ensure a nonpartisan, independent ethics body, there will be politicians who accuse it of being partisan when it makes decisions against their interests. The good thing is that, when the body is truly nonpartisan and independent, these politicians look ridiculous. But often there is a serious confusion among nonpartisanship, bipartisanship, and independence with respect to the selection of ethics body members. It is important to understand the distinctions among them.

My most recent blog post involved ethics commission confidentiality. This one involves the other side of the coin:  ethics commission transparency.

Once again, the failure to work out in advance the relationship between an ethics commission and an inspector general's office has led to the locking of horns in the midst of an ethics proceeding. This time the location of the turf war is the District of Columbia.

What just happened in San Diego, according to an article in yesterday's Union-Tribune, is a lesson for local government ethics commission members, especially commission chairs, and even more especially chairs who speak out. Most important, it points out how important EC independence is.

Who should and who should not sit on elections commissions? Other than land-use commissions (and, sadly, ethics commissions), elections commissions are probably the most abused in terms of membership. Take the election commission in Hamblen County, according to the March 7-10, 2007 entries in the noe4accountability blog. It has five members.