City Related

Everyone knows the three lies jokes. Every topic has its three lies, and the third one is the punch line. Unfortunately, in government ethics there aren't any punch lines, but there are lies, or at least common rhetoric that isn't true, what I will refer to as "untruths." Those who believe in effective government ethics programs need to be ready to respond to them when they arise.

There's a lot of talk among government ethics practitioners about how important it is for ethics commissions to have teeth, that is, the ability to at least reprimand and fine government officials for ethics violations. Requiring council approval of ethics recommendations brings elected officials into the ethics process and politicizes it. And politicizing an ethics program undermines its goal of gaining the public's trust in elected officials to govern for the public, not for themselves and their families, friends, and business and political associates.

The conclusion of an op-ed column in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune about the mess in Venice that I wrote about yesterday made me realize that I had not yet written about one of the most important problems in government ethics:  process vs. substance.

Update below
Recently, I wrote a bit about the odd Venice, FL ethics program, which puts the city manager completely in charge. Now Venice is making news with respect to open government issues, and this has led to a very interesting conflict of interest issue.

I've always felt torn with respect to whether citizens should be allowed to ask for advisory opinions that have to do with local government officials, as can be seen in the advisory opinion provision and comments in the City Ethics Model Code Project.

What could provide a better education for local government ethics practitioners than reading through a greatly expanded 261-page list of all the cases the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board has decided or settled from 1992 through last week? The ethics provisions may not be the same as everywhere, but the problems usually are.

The summaries are organized by topic, but there's no table of contents. So here goes:

Agreeing on the local government budget is the most important thing that the government does every year, because it affects every department and agency. But with the exception of the big issues of the year, it's a pretty arcane process often accomplished behind closed doors. Thus, it provides excellent opportunities for unethical conduct, very little of it dealt with in ethics codes.

A city full of casinos has no need for an ethics board, right? Well, according to an article in yesterday's Press of Atlantic City, that's the decision the Atlantic City council made last week.

Update below:

The Internet has been around for some time now, and yet local government officials still get away with saying things like, “If you have a better process or procedure [than having the city council enforce the ethics code], I would like to hear about it.”

An article in yesterday's New York Times points to yet another clever end run around ethics laws involving municipal bonds. Bond underwriters are not allowed to make campaign contributions, to prevent a pay-to-play environment. However, financial advisers, the people who hook local governments up with bond underwriters, are allowed to make campaign contributions. And so they do, in large quantities, it appears, even though they work closely with underwriters as a team.