City Related

Who is covered by an ethics code can be very important. In Baltimore, for instance, as I wrote in a recent blog entry, the city solicitor has interpreted the ethics code to require disclosure of gifts only from companies doing business with the city, not from their owners, officers, or employees.

I also wrote recently about jurisdiction over contractors paid with local government funds, but not directly by the local government.

It had to happen soon:  a legislative immunity defense has been used in a local government ethics matter, albeit in a city where violations are criminally prosecuted. I happened upon it in my research on my last blog entry, about the Baltimore mayor's defenses of her taking gifts from a city developer when she was president of the city council.

Update below:
The controversy in Baltimore over the mayor's acceptance of gifts from a developer whose companies have received a great deal of funding from the city appears now to be focused on whether or not the mayor was required to disclose these gifts, since the developer did not personally do business with the city.

One of the principal reasons I have focused my energies on local government ethics is that most people learn their government ethics at the local level. What they see people doing on councils and zoning boards, they do on state legislatures and commissions, and then again at the federal level.

But things go the other way, as well. Disdain for government ethics at the state level can affect the ethics environments of that state's local governments. This appears to be happening in Missouri.

According to an article in the Tulsa World, last week the city's Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC) ruled in favor of one of its members, Michael Slankard, with respect to an advisory opinion request by the city attorney. This situation raises several interesting issues.

Background Information

An important issue in local government ethics is how far jurisdiction should go. Recently, I did a blog entry on jurisdiction over those doing government-approved work. An article in today's New York Times raises another important jurisdictional question:  should a local government have ethics jurisdiction over those contracted to do work supported by city funds, but not paid directly by the city?

One of the biggest problems people have with government ethics is acknowledging the difference between ethics enforcement and ethics practice. Ethics enforcement is legal. You cannot enforce rules that are not in the law. But when it comes to ethics practice, the law represents only the minimum requirement. The law is what you have to do, but an official can be more ethical, more open, more responsible than what is required. Officials have fiduciary duties that go far beyond the provisions of ethics codes.

According to an article yesterday in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, there's a battle going on in New Orleans, but this time it involves a flood of public documents, as well as a trickle of financial disclosure forms. The battle is between the mayor and the city council, on one side, and a civil rights organization called the Louisiana Justice Institute on the other.

Happy Fifth Birthday, Atlanta Ethics Office! The Ethics Office has celebrated its birthday with a 40-page report on its first five years of existence. It is well worth looking at.

Update: February 5, 2010 (see below)

Alaska and a small utility district in Texas. Who would have thought they could have anything in common. But they do: representation without taxation.