An interesting case in Iowa raises questions about the purposes behind post-employment, or "revolving door," provisions, including whom they are
supposed to protect and why.
The reason I haven't written about George Anderson is that he has
done too much, and been too controversial, for me to get a handle on him. In other words, laziness. He
has been an ethics and non-ethics watchdog in Georgia for many years, filing
numerous ethics and other sorts of complaints both at the state and at the local level. He
heads an organization called Ethics in Government, which does not
seem to have a website.
This is the first of a series of looks at the ethics programs of
smaller cities, towns, and counties. These local governments have
the resources to create an independent, comprehensive ethics
program, but they rarely do. It is valuable to look at both the good ideas and the bad ideas
in the programs they have chosen to create.
According to an
article in the Orlando Sentinel last week, the Florida
Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Osceola County
Clerk of the Court "[used] his position to intimidate [his office's]
employees in order to enhance his personal and political power."
This raises the issue of whether intimidation can be considered an
ethics violation.
It took a law student doing a summer job, but there is finally confirmation of what I
have been saying for a long time: normal people do not
understand the word "interest" as it is commonly used by lawyers in
the government ethics context. It was for this reason that I rarely
use the word "interest" in my book Local Government Ethics Programs.
Many ethics codes expressly state that government officials and
employees may not allow the use of city stationery for any purpose
other than city business. The principal goal of this rule is
to prevent officials from using city stationery for personal
purposes, such as campaigns, business transactions, and charitable
solicitations. The rule is part of the more general prohibition of the misuse
of city resources and of the city's power and reputation as the manager
of the community.
According to Dan
Lett's column in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday, when a
conflict of interest issue arises with respect to Winnipeg's mayor,
his first response is to shrug his shoulders. If that works, that's
the end of the matter.
One of the wonderful things about local government ethics is that
every mayor or county executive feels qualified to act as if he was
establishing the first local government ethics program ever. It's
sort of like choosing what will go in a bento box, except that there
are no rules (e.g., only one sushi roll, or you've got to have miso or the clear
soup).
This second of two posts on Michael Sandel's new book, What Money
Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (Farrar Straus, 2012),
includes a few fascinating takes on different aspects of government ethics, including
preferential treatment, municipal marketing, skyboxes, and the sensitive topic of inappropriate
incentives.