The New York Times has an excellent article
today on Alan Greenspan in relation to the current
financial crisis. It provides food for thought about government regulation at
any level.
Essentially, Greenspan believes that the cause of the crisis is Wall
Street decisionmakers not acting honorably. However, the decision to
regulate, like the decision to pass ethics codes, is to guide people to
act more honorably and penalize those who do not.
New York City is in a crisis. But its mayor and 2/3 of its City Council
will have to leave office due to term limits imposed by referendum in
the 1990s.
When does an interest become an interest? When an official starts
thinking about entering into a contract? When she starts negotiating
the contract? When she agrees on the details? When she actually signs
the contract? Or is this not really the question to focus on?
Sometimes a conflict of interest can help a community save money. An
official with a relationship to a company might be able to negotiate a
better deal for his town, as long as his company gets the business and
the credit. But is this legitimate, and even if it is, how should it be
handled?
Sometimes it's very difficult for a government official to deal with a
conflict of interest involving a member of his or her immediate family.
The common approach to ethics is to assume that an official will favor
a family member, but sometimes an ethics law can take an official out
of the uncomfortable position of having to reject a family member. And
sometimes the situation with a family member can have elements of both.
A troubling KMOV
television news report from Missouri (yes, another story from
Missouri) has caught fire on right-leaning blogs. A self-styled Obama
Truth Squad has been formed in Missouri, consisting of city and county
prosecutors and sheriffs, who intend to set the record straight in
response to advertisements that falsely characterize Sen. Obama and his
policies. Examples include his religion and his tax cut proposal.
A year and a half ago, I started
a series of blog entries on logical fallacies and their use in
municipal politics. Logical fallacies are pseudo-arguments that
consciously or unconsciously attempt to falsely persuade or manipulate
people. They treat people as means rather than as ends, manipulating
their thoughts, their feelings, their prejudices, their loyalties for
the speaker's ends.
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.