Ethics Codes & Reform

Another logical fallacy commonly used by municipal officials is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Attack: the Ad Populum ('[appeal] to the people') Defense. The typical Ad Populum Defense is 'Everybody does it.' There are two simple responses to this. One is, 'How do you know what everybody else does?' In other words, you can't show that what you are saying is true.

It is difficult to be an ethical politician or administrator, or even a citizen, without a basic understanding of logic. It is also difficult to appreciate others' unethical conduct without a basic understanding of logic. By logic I do not mean the opposite of irrationality, but rather critical thinking, and specifically an understanding of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are probably the most frequent form of unethical conduct in municipal government.

This is the place to discuss negotiating with unions regarding penalties that apply to their municipal employee members. This is a sensitive area, where open discussion could be especially helpful to preventing friction by considering union perspectives and requirements as part of the process of preparating or amending an ethics code.

Some municipalities limit some provisions to certain officials, so that, for instance, employees do not have to go through the same level of annual disclosure as officials do, or only officials and employees dealing with contracts, development, zoning, etc. need file annual disclosure forms. This is the place to discuss different levels of application of an ethics code's provisions to different levels and types of official and employee.

The ethics reforms coming out of New York and Utah provide two contrasting, yet equally questionable approaches. In New York state, ethics legislation was negotiated among the new governor, the assembly speaker, and the senate majority leader, behind closed doors. In Utah, the governor said he would issue an executive order. The background for each of these approaches is the same: the legislature could not or would not come up with ethics reform on its own. The Utah governor said he'd given up waiting.

This is the place to share your experiences with and thoughts about problems faced in passing or improving municipal ethics codes, and possible solutions to these problems.

False statements are a means of unfairly manipulating a situation in one's own favor. Please share your thoughts about this problem and your experiences with attempts to solve it through an ethics code or otherwise.

100(21). Honesty in Applications for Positions

No person seeking to become an official or employee,* consultant* or contractor may make any false statement, submit any false document, or knowingly withhold information about wrongdoing in connection with employment by or service for the city.

There is a lot of talk about courtesy in politics, but most discourtesy involves lack of respect and uncontrolled emotions on the part of officials in their relations with each other. It becomes an ethical problem when citizens are attacked in order to intimidate them and others from being involved in local politics. The conflicting interest here is central to democracy: participation in government. False personal attacks are a favorite means of decreasing participation and citizen oversight. I've been on the receiving end myself, and it is ugly.

Complicity with and knowledge of violations are two minefields it is worth crossing. They involve not only dotting the i's, but they also go right to a central element of responsibility: are you responsible for what others do, especially when you are involved or you let it happen. So much of what happens in any organization involves knowingly letting others -- especially subordinates -- do the dirty work. Note that this provision includes outsiders, such as people doing business with the city.