I
recently wrote about a situation in Stamford, CT in which probable
cause was found based on a policy declaration rather than an
enforceable ethics provision. That situation appeared to involve a
misunderstanding, with a unanimous ethics commission finding probable
cause.
Many jurisdictions have a rule that disallows the filing of an ethics
complaint against an elected official within so many days before an
election. The purpose of such a rule is to prevent the abuse of the
ethics process for political purposes. But is this the best
solution to this problem?
Forget the fascinating range of ethics programs at the local level. It is congressional
ethics programs that get the national attention. And with all this attention, what Congress does, and fails to do, has a great effect not
only on what happens at the local level, but also on the rhetoric
employed there.
When Congress self-administered its own ethics, every council or county
commission member could say that if self-regulation is good enough for
Congress, it's good enough for them. Only legislative bodies, the
rhetoric went, can oversee legislators.
Using government employees for private purposes is one of the most
common ethics code violations.
This violation is especially bad because it involves coercion of
individuals, in this case subordinates who are not in a position to say
no. Coercion and intimidation rarely occur outside of a poor
ethical environment.
This violation also shows a serious failure to recognize the boundary
between public and private, which is the heart of government ethics.
In a
recent blog post, I wrote about a federal third circuit decision
that a law prohibiting an ethics complainant from announcing the filing
of the complaint violates the complainant's first amendment rights.
This decision contradicts a second circuit decision that upheld a law
prohibiting the announcing of the filing of a judicial ethics complaint.
According to an
article
in the News-Tribune, the governor of Missouri recently
signed an
ethics
bill (SB 844) that made many changes in the state's ethics
and campaign finance programs, and failed to make others, such as a
campaign contribution limit, which the legislature had eliminated in
2006.
Recently, I wrote a
blog post on the political use of ethics complaints and the
manipulation of the press. Yesterday, the third circuit court of
appeals effectively, and I think wrongly, disagreed with one of my
principal arguments in that post, and therefore came to the wrong decision.