Local Government Practice

Update: August 9, 2012 (see below)

People tend to think that all good government people are alike. The thinking goes that those who favor the improvement of ethics programs also favor such things as term limits, referendums and initiatives, and pension forfeiture by those found to have violated the public's trust. As a matter of fact, I don't favor any of these other good government approaches.

Possibly the most important single thing in government ethics is the recognition that just because something isn't required, it doesn't mean you can't do it, and that just because something is not expressly prohibited, it doesn't mean you can do it. This is an expanded version of what I've often talked about:  that, unlike most laws, ethics laws are minimum requirements.

There are usually many ways to deal responsibly with a conflict situation. But there are also many irresponsible ways to deal with a conflict situation. One of the irresponsible ways is to be considered today in Portland, OR, according to an article on the KATU News website.

Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney raised an issue in a column this weekend that I feel should be taken seriously. The background story is that two of the current D.C. mayor's campaign aides confessed to having paid a mayoral candidate, and offered him a job in the coming administration, for him to relentlessly criticize the then mayor, who was running for re-election.

Here's an interesting political activity situation out of La Crosse County, Wisconsin. According to an article in the La Crosse Tribune last week, the county administrator was involved in supporting a referendum to give the city of La Crosse its own administrator. A city or county manager is not supposed to be involved in local politics, according to the ethics code of their own professional association, ICMA.

Over the weekend, I read a March 2010 draft of Rebecca Roiphe's law review article "The Ethics of Willful Ignorance," which appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Volume 24, Issue 1 (Winter 2011).

The Schumpeter column in this week's Economist talks about the corporate chief legal officer (CLO), who due to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's requirements has become a major figure at the top of every big corporation. Much as the city or county attorney is a major figure at the top of every local government.

One of the most damaging aspects of ethical misconduct in government is that it decreases the amount of citizen participation in government activities. People feel that their local government is rigged to help politicians and their families, friends, and business associates. It's not worth spending time getting involved in a rigged system, unless your goal is to be part of the in crowd.

Local governments often give special recognition to individuals and organizations. It's part of promoting the good works that are being done in the community. But it is also, of course, a form of preferential treatment. For every individual and organization that is recognized for good works, there are many others that are not recognized.

Below is the text of a talk I gave at the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws conference this week. Due to time limitations, I was not able to share this entire text, so even those who heard the talk may want to read this and see what they missed. For those who have been following my posts on legislative immunity, this talk not only brings together a lot of information, but also adds a section on how much of a misnomer "absolute" legislative immunity is.