"I must say regretfully that ...

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has reached a decision on the legislative immunity case (Irons v. RI Ethics Commission) involving the state ethics commission and the state legislature. As expected, its majority opinion (it was a 3-1 split) concluded that the state's Speech in Debate Clause 100% overrides the 1986 constitutional amendment that granted the state ethics commission full authority over state legislators.

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.

One of the big stories in government ethics this week involves an attempt in Tennessee to consolidate the state ethics and campaign finance commissions, which on its face sounds like a good way to save money during these tough times. But when politicians deal with ethics laws and bodies, things are rarely that simple, especially when the state's ethics director is fired in the midst of the debate.

To those who read my recent blog entry, it will come as no surprise that, yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District Court's ruling in the Nevada legislative immunity case (the Order of Affirmation, in searchable form, is attached to this blog entry below).

If the governmental ethics community had a publicity program, the headline of a front-page article in Tuesday's Kansas City Star would be a call to arms:

Legislators agree: Ethics laws are puppies, not pit bulls

The gist of the article is that, in Missouri and Kansas, the state ethics commissions are underfunded, the state ethics laws are too weak, and enforcement is insufficient to act as a deterrent.

One thing that keeps striking me about the recent decisions in the legislative immunity cases relating to government ethics is how little they attempt to distinguish cases outside the ethics field from these cases in the ethics field.

Is government ethics no different from criminal prosecution, no different from civil suits?

Narrowly-Drawn Statutes Such as Ethics Codes

It's refreshing when an elected official attacks government ethics head-on. This is what Tennessee state representative Willie "Butch" Borchert did in an impromptu speech yesterday, according to an Associated Press report.

When it really comes down to it (and it usually does), what is the greatest enemy of trust in government, or anywhere else for that matter? Greed, power, ego, loyalty? I'd put my money on (or against) rationalization, the ability of people to justify what they do and fail to do.