City Related

In March, I wrote a blog post about a nepotism situation in Valparaiso, IN. The city's ethics commission found that the hiring of the fire chief's son would be in violation of the ethics code, because the chief would be directly involved in personnel matters involving his son.

Going by the reaction of the news media and the Pulitzer committee, the most serious government ethics scandal of 2010 occurred in Bell, California, where the city's top officials were paying themselves huge salaries, taking advantage of an uneducated, uninvolved citizenry.

Needless to say, last week's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Carrigan v. Nevada Commission on Ethics case, which I have been following over the past year, was the last oral argument of the term. Was this putting local government ethics in the caboose or saving the best for last?

Update: September 17, 2011 (see below)

An article in yesterday's Stamford Advocate keeps asking the question, Who should pay? The article is referring to attorney's fees related to an ethics proceeding. Most ethics codes do not deal with this issue, and therefore it often turns into a big political controversy after the fact, leaving a bad taste in citizens' mouths, especially if they are forced to foot the bill.

Kerry Cavanaugh, a Los Angeles Daily News columnist, got it wrong when she started a recent column, "Here's another reminder that politicians are not like you or me. If I get caught taking inappropriate gifts or violating the company's ethics policy, I might be fired, suspended without pay or forced to open my wallet to pay the penalty.

Here's a situation from Lafayette Parish, a city of 220,000 in south-central Louisiana, which shows how when one official fails to deal responsibly with his conflicts, he is likely to be complicit in helping other officials deal irresponsibly with their conflicts and with those of their colleagues. When this official is a government attorney, it can cause an entire board or agency to deal irresponsibly with a conflict.

Wow! Get a Load of Those Salaries!
It's official. People get more upset over big salaries to government officials than over bribes, kickbacks, unbid contracts, and the like, which cost taxpayers far, far more.

In my last post, I dealt with the many arguments against application of the attorney-client privilege in the context of an inspector general, or ethics commission, investigation of official misconduct. One thing I did not do was respond to the general argument in favor of attorney-client privilege.

Is the attorney-client privilege, in the context of an inspector general's (or, for that a matter, an ethics commission's) investigation of misconduct in city government, "sacred," as Chicago's corporation counsel insists? Is it even appropriate?

This is a long post that will be fascinating to many, will raise hackles in some, but will be of less interest to others. If you want to cut to the chase, read the summary paragraph at the end and move on.

When there is no formal process for dealing with a council member's conflict of interest, and the council handles the matter itself, things can get farcical. This is what is happening in Bellevue, WA. This wealthy suburb of Seattle, with a population of 120,000, has an ethics code for employees, but with no independent enforcement. Its ethics code for elected officials is just the state's limited provisions, again with no independent enforcement, training, or advice.