Ethics Commissions & Administration

Update - see below (9/2/09)
One of the biggest limitations on local government ethics codes can be state ethics laws. In Connecticut, for example, state laws seriously limit how much local ethics commissions can fine violators of an ethics code. In fact, the language is so vague, many lawyers insist that local ethics commissions can't fine at all. State legislators, most of whom are former local government legislators, don't want to let local ethics commissions get out of hand.

Update below
The only thing worse than stacking ethics commissions with politically active, and apparently loyal, members is refusing to renew the term of a member who has been a vocal advocate of government ethics, in other words, a thorn in the side of officials who do not follow the local government's ethics codes. Clever officials know that one or two members of any board can have a strong effect on what the board does.

What just happened in San Diego, according to an article in yesterday's Union-Tribune, is a lesson for local government ethics commission members, especially commission chairs, and even more especially chairs who speak out. Most important, it points out how important EC independence is.

In yesterday's miscellany, I talked about an ethics commission member conflicted due to having played a role in the campaign of an official brought before the commission. There are two ways to deal with such a conflict. One is to deal with it like any conflict, when it arises. The other is to prevent the conflict from occurring.

Normally, the right way to handle conflicts is the first way, when they arise. Conflicts are common, and dealing with them responsibly is central to government ethics.

The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) recently issued an advisory opinion (attached, see below) on the subject of conflicts involving city council discretionary funds, a topic I wrote about last year. This is a model advisory opinion, especially in the way it provides a number of scenarios to which it applies the city's relevant ethics provisions. The opinion goes beyond any single request for advice to provide advice for as great a range of possible situations as the staff could imagine.

Community outreach is usually toward the bottom of a local government ethics commission's priority list.

Nothing is more important to an ethics program than ensuring that an ethics commission is seen as independent, and not a pawn of politicians. People will not trust the advisory opinions and enforcement decisions of an ethics commission consisting of people with even presumed ties to politicians. Since trust is the principal goal of an ethics program, this is unacceptable.

Updates below
Anyone who doubts the need for truly independent ethics commissions need look no further than what has been happening in Philadelphia this week. Or should I say "this year"?

According to an article on yesterday's Philly.com website, the Philadelphia Board of Ethics fined its executive director $500 for violating the confidentiality rules of the city's ethics code. The story is instructive in how to handle such difficult matters. (Disclosure: I know and have a lot of respect for both of the individuals in this matter.)