Complaints/ Investigations/Hearings

Gov. Sarah Palin's national fame has brought government ethics complaints to the attention of people who had never paid any attention to them. And the result has, in general, been one of distortion rather than education. The latest news has especially distorted the nation's view of government ethics: the argument that defending against frivolous ethics complaints was too costly in dollars and time, and therefore damaging to the state and the people of Alaska, so damaging that the governor resigned her position.

According to an Associated Press article yesterday, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission recommended a rule change that would get rid of the gag rule on people who file ethics complaints. The cause of the rule change is two suits filed against the EC, challenging the gag rule. The suits were filed on freedom of speech grounds.

"Investigators, like prosecutors, must understand that the desire to go after big game to garner big headlines may be as unethical as the offenses they are pursuing."

This is the central point of a formal statement made by the new chair of the New York State Commission on Public Integrity concerning the report of the Inspector General on the former executive director of the the commission and the commission itself.

It seriously undermines the public's understanding of government ethics when highly visible decisions misrepresent basic government ethics concepts.

In a  recent blog post, I wrote about the fining of the executive director of Philadelphia's board of ethics for violating confidentiality rules. That blog post focused on dealing responsibly with a possible violation of an ethics code provision (although not actually an ethics provision, but instead a disciplinary rule). Now I would like to focus on confidentiality rules and penalties in the government ethics context, and the many constitutional, policy, and logical problems these rules and penalties run into.

Yesterday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held oral arguments on the appeal of the RI legislative immunity decision.

Local government officials often defend halfway ethics reforms by saying that they're just the beginning, and that something is better than nothing. But halfway reforms are often effectively little more than nothing, especially in the area of enforcement. "Window dressing" is one term for such reforms. "Paper tiger" is another.

It's amazing how quickly a legislature can move when a bill is so embarrassing, the state's major newspaper calls it "Great for unethical public officials. Lousy for taxpayers." How quickly? Same day service.