City Related

It's only a month ago that a federal court in California rejected a PAC's attempt to prevent the Los Angeles ethics commission from enforcing contribution limits in the city's ethics laws.

The ethics commission for the largest American city, and the only one with a truly appropriate title — New York City's Conflicts of Interest Board — is appointed by the city's extremely strong mayor, with council approval.

If this old and highly respected EC were to be made independent of the administration it oversees, it would send an important message to the rest of the country's local governments.

Here's a tough call. It's a few weeks before a primary election, and you (a local ethics commission member or staff member) learn that a candidate has violated an ethics code provision, and hidden it via a false disclosure. Do you act or do you sit on your hands until after the election?

I talk a lot about the importance of independent ethics commissions. But independence is not always a good thing for local government boards and commissions. Independence without oversight, transparency, and independent ethics enforcement easily turns into someone's fiefdom.

Standard of proof is a big issue in ethics enforcement, as it is in any enforcement. A year and a half ago, I wrote a blog post on the mishmash of standards of proof in local ethics codes and in the codes of states that have jurisdiction over local government ethics. In many codes there is no stated standard or a worthlessly ambiguous standard. In others, the standard is clear, but a serious obstacle to enforcement.

Good and Bad News from Memphis
The good news from Memphis is that newly-elected mayor A. C. Wharton, Jr. issued an ethics executive order last week (attached; see below). The order's provisions, which do not apply to council and its staff, are less valuable in their own right than as a prod to the council to improve the current ethics code.

This summer, several New Jersey local government officials were arrested in a big FBI sting operation (see my blog post). Yesterday, an ethics audit focused on development practices was released. Requested by the Jersey City council, it was written by three members of a New Jersey law firm.

Ethics reform aimed at political opponents is a good way to undermine the whole idea of ethics reform. This is what is happening in San Jose.

The relationship between San Diego's council and ethics commission continues to prove unhealthy. It shows how wrong it is for elected officials to appoint and control the body that oversees their conduct.

According to an article in today's Union-Tribune, a long-term EC investigation has led to an accusation that a council member did not report campaign expenses until eight months after they were incurred. That should be the central story, but it's not.

Yesterday, Philadelphia's Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform released a 58-page report (plus ethics laws) requested by the city's mayor and council president in 2008.

The report recommends a large number of reforms, most of them stricter than what exists, some of them less strict and more realistic. Here are some of the most important recommendations:

Make ethics rules applicable to all city officials and employees. Now some rules apply only to the executive branch.