Advisory Opinions

The idea of a designated driver was a great idea (thank you, Scandinavia). The idea of the designated hitter was a lousy idea (yes, I'm a National Leaguer).

It is very damaging when a government official misrepresents ethics advice he has been given. What should an ethics officer or commission do when this happens? In many cases, such advice, especially when it is provided informally, is confidential. When an official makes a public statement about such advice, the EC spokesperson can say nothing but "No comment." This allows the official to say whatever he likes.

Kudos to the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for inventing a new local government ethics term in an editorial yesterday. The term is "dyscronia."

Two of the most important elements of a government ethics program are the appearance (and reality) of independence and a monopoly on ethics advice and enforcement. The government ethics program that has jurisdiction over the greatest number of local officials and employees in the U.S. has problems with respect to both of these elements. And its commission's selection of a new executive director, after two years without a formal director, emphasizes both of these problems.

Some people incorrectly believe that a conflict of interest requires an official not to vote in such a way as to benefit himself. That is, if the official might benefit from a vote, it's okay for him to vote against it, because that shows that the official is not seeking to benefit himself.

According to an article in the Denver Post last week,these are the words of Colorado's Secretary of State after the state ethics commission found him in violation of an ethics provision, on account of using state funds to attend the Republican national convention last year:

"As we said from the start, I've had grave concerns about this tribunal's ability to be fair and objective.

“Incompatible offices” is a form of conflict that is usually left out of ethics codes. One reason is that there is a common law prohibition against officials holding incompatible offices. But whether or not the conflict is common law or in an ethics code, this is an important kind of conflict that should be included in ethics training so that it is understood. It should also be a topic for which officials may seek ethics advice.

The Colorado ethics commission matter that I discussed in my last blog post points to yet another reason why ethics commissions must have their own counsel, and a sufficient budget to pay that counsel.

A February draft advisory opinion from the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (attached; see below) raises two different issues. One is the problematic nature of a total gift ban, that is, a ban on all gifts from anyone, accompanied by a whole host of exceptions. The other is the important differences among gifts, campaign contributions, and contributions to an official's legal defense fund.

I have done a poor job in this blog covering administrative ethics, that is, the field of study involving the professional conduct of public administrators. Writers on administrative ethics have done a poor job of covering government ethics, that is, the field of study involving conflicts of interest. Although the two fields overlap, they exist in mostly separate worlds.  For example, rarely does an administrative ethics professor show up at a Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) conference, and my work (among others') has been totally ignored by administrative ethics professors.