Ethics Codes & Reform

The most serious obstacle to the acceptance of conflict of interest programs in government is the clash between government ethics' use of a rules-based (deontological) ethical approach, and government officials' use of an ends-based (teleological) ethical approach.

Here is an editorial from today's Salt Lake City Tribune about the state of the state's ethics laws. I've read editorials like this before, but this one sounds unusually hopeless. After the editorial, I will throw out an idea about how to go about getting politicians to make the right sort of ethics pledges.

Ethics reform: If at first you don't succeed ...

In Arcata, California, according to an article in yesterday's Times-Standard, there is a policy to review the city's conflict of interest code every two years. This is extremely rare. Ethics codes are usually reviewed only when there is a scandal or when a mayor wants to add a feather to his or her hat.

I'd like to follow up on what I said at the end of yesterday's blog entry, about jurisdictions that make ethics violations criminal and require a showing of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and a showing of intentionality or recklessness or negligence. Here is the penalty provision in the Arizona Conduct of Office chapter, which applies equally to local governments (to see the entire chapter, click here and scroll down to Chapter 3):

The passing of new ethics code provisions in Anoka, MN (pop. 18,000) provides a fine case study of how to try to pass off useless ethics code reform as something valuable.

A lie to protect oneself or to mislead others in one's own interest is as bald a conflict of interest as there can be. But since it usually involves no money, and since it is hard to prove the difference between a lie and a mistake in knowledge or interpretation (which is why the word "lie" is never used; "misrepresentation" and "false statement" are preferred terms), a lie is almost never a violation of a government ethics code. In addition, most people don't seem to think lying is such a bad thing. After all, we all do it, and we all know that politicians do little else.

According to an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, a county commissioner in Ohio voted on a contract that went to her non-dependent son, and she is being investigated by the Ohio Ethics Commission.

An article in today's Modesto Bee provides an excellent example of problems that arise when a city's redevelopment is accomplished by people who can benefit directly from it.

The five-person Riverbank, California Council has three members who own property downtown, which is going through a redevelopment phase (apparently, things like theaters, not low-cost housing).  The council members also sit on the city's Redevelopment Agency.

How a big-city police chief responds to his commission of an ethics violation is more important than the violation itself. The worst thing he can do is act as if he is above the law, as if ethics laws, not to mention ethics considerations, do not apply to him.

Sadly, Miami's police chief, John Timoney, has done the wrong thing almost every time he had the opportunity.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

According to a recent article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth's mayor, Mike Moncrief, made $633,000 last year from the oil and gas business. He also has an interest in several real estate developments. A committee, appointed by the mayor and council, will soon be making recommendations on rules for natural gas drilling and on fees that affect real estate development.