Conflicts

Today I came across the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (State) website. MRSC is "private, non-profit organization based in Seattle," whose mission is "to promote excellence in Washington local government through professional consultation, research and information services."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In English: Who will guard the guardians? This is a question many people ask about ethics commissions. But the question I would like to raise is, Is this the right question to ask?

Unions are paid for by union members, business associations are paid for by businesses, but local government associations are paid for by taxpayers, not by local governments. And yet while unions represent members, and business associations represent businesses, local government associations represent local governments. This setup is asking for trouble.

One thing I have scarcely mentioned in my blog are ethical rules related to a local board or commission when it is acting in a quasi-judicial manner. I mentioned the common-law conflicts in such circumstances in a recent blog post, as well as the absolute immunity given to the Philadelphia ethics board due to its quasi-judicial activities in another recent blog post.

Some lawyers abuse or misrepresent the lawyer-client privilege and client confidentiality to protect their own unethical conduct. But no one does it better than elected government officials who also happen to be lawyers, and have the ability to draft ethics laws.

One way of describing government ethics is that it involves the use and abuse of the power that goes with government officials' positions. Not all such abuses are covered by ethics laws, of course. This blog post looks at an instance of abuse that is not covered. It involves a state legislature and, especially, one state representative, in a state where local ethics is handled at the state level.

Since my exchange with an attorney for the Michigan Townships Association in June, I've been wondering about the inherent conflicts involved in local government associations.

One thing I've failed to do in this blog is sufficiently emphasize that making ethical decisions in government is not primarily about being a good, ethical person, as most people seem to think. Essentially, it is the same as making other decisions. As I  recently wrote, "with effective training, in an ethical environment, government ethics should be just another professional routine."

Dealing Responsibly with Conflicts of Interest Is Professional

David Brooks' column in the New York Times today is about two views of character, the philosophers' and psychologists' views. He too simply portrays the philosophers' view as involving ingrained character traits, which is sadly how most people seem to view character. I would call this the mythological view of character.

The concept of a conflict of interest is sometimes stretched far beyond what government ethics laws say, usually by those making accusations against government officials. But here is an example where a respected judge stretched the concept even further. It comes from a decision by Judge Friendly in Green v. Board of Elections of the City of New York, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir., 1967).