City Related

Whenever someone dies in a village in Bangladesh, Gonoshasthaya Kendra, a health charity, holds a public post-mortem, according to an article in the July 7, 2007 issue of the Economist.

According to a 33-count indictment filed yesterday by the United States Attorney for New Jersey, former Newark, NJ mayor Sharpe James appears to have been just another crooked urban mayor out to help himself and his friends to the sort of perks that aren't supposed to come with public service: trips, tickets, cruises, the usual. What is sad about this particular instance of corruption is that James is a folk hero in Newark, despite the fact that he continues to deny all charges and that he shows no concern about furth

An excellent op-ed column by Stanley Fish in the July 14 New York Times focuses on a very difficult ethical problem in municipal government: affirmative action. The recently decided Supreme Court decision, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al (No.

Many municipal ethics codes have a provision similar to this one: Contingent Fees No official or employee may retain, or be retained by, anyone to solicit or secure a contract with the town upon an agreement or understanding that includes a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, except with respect to attorneys hired to represent the town on a common contingency fee basis. I had never thought twice about the exception for attorneys who work on a contingency fee basis until I read Adam Liptak's column in today's New York Times.

According to a May 24, 2007 New York Times editorial, the Commerce Department inspector general, charged with protecting whistle-blowers, took vengeance on two subordinates who questioned his expense accounts. He reassigned his top deputy and his counsel to peripheral jobs, when they refused to sign off on expensive trips and office renovations. This happened at the federal level, but it is important to show how fragile whistle-blowing is.

If you had no knowledge of government ethics, and you were asked what, on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis, was the most frequent form of unethical behavior in municipal government, you might say 'passing rumors along.' That's the meat and the potatoes of every organization's conversations, and it's only the most self-controlled of us who don't partake in producing, consuming, and passing along rumors, at least occasionally. We know rumor mongering is wrong, even as we do it. But rarely does it have devastating consequences (we assure ourselves, if we think about it at all).

Today's New York Times Week in Review section features an article on local prosecutors and how their ethical misconduct is dealt with by the lawyer discipline system, the profession's disciplinary system. The case of the Duke lacrosse prosecutor, Michael B. Nifong, is, of course, the occasion for this article. Mr. Nifong was disbarred for withholding evidence from the defense and misleading the court. Sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct are rare. But the question is, Why?

At first glance, these two logical fallacies don't seem to have much to do with each other. When you beg the question, you assume something has been established or proved, according to my trusty dictionary. The way a logician would define the begging the question fallacy is that the premises include the claim or assumption that the conclusion is true, without providing any evidence or actual argument. The result is a circular argument, taking for granted what it's supposed to prove.

One great advantage of handling local government ethics matters at the state level is that decisions and advisory opinions can be easily and widely disseminated to all local governments in the state. This sort of publicity is good for several reasons. One, it provides precedents and guidance to local government officials. Two, it provides deterrence by showing the consequences of a wide variety of ethical violations.

Today's Hartford Courant gives us an excellent picture of a very creative way of making the municipal government work for you, conflicts of interest be damned. The municipal entrepreneur in this instance is Abraham L. Giles, referred to as a 'North End political boss.' His scheme involves vulnerable city residents -- evicted tenants.