Model Code

I've been meaning for a long time to take a long second look at the City Ethics Model Code provision on the revolving door that many officials walk through between government and firms that do business with government. It's a complex matter, and local governments as well as states with jurisdiction over local government ethics deal with it in a variety of ways.

I recently critiqued the new Michigan model local government ethics ordinance.

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 biggest thing missing from ethics codes is lying. Everyone agrees that a government official or employee who lies lacks integrity, but ethics codes almost never prohibit this.

It isn't that lying is okay, it's just very hard to enforce. Defending a lie leads to more lies and other forms of dishonesty. It can get really ugly.

When I saw the lead headline in Wednesday's New York Times, "In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry into Past Use," I thought of local government ethics, even though the article was about torture. Okay, I suppose I spend too much time thinking about local government ethics, but bear with me for a minute.

State or local ethics laws, state or local ethics training, state or local disclosure forms, state or local ethics enforcement? This is probably the biggest issue in local government ethics. And it's a very complicated one, which I have only rarely dealt with. There are good (and bad) arguments on both sides, as well as practical, political, constitutional, and funding considerations to take into account.

The controversy surrounding the New York State pension fund returned to the front page of the New York Times today. The players are former state comptroller Alan Hevesi, his political adviser Hank Morris, and pension fund investment officer David Loglisci.

Type "ethics" into the search line at utah.gov, and all that comes up is Archery Ethics Course Online.

In response to what are referred to in Utah as last year's "ethics wars," a new legislative ethics bill has been drafted. What is interesting for local government ethics is how focused the new bill is on fighting last year's war, with little thought about anything else.

Sometimes, those who write or amend local government ethics codes forget to make it clear exactly who is covered by an ethics code. Sometimes there is discussion about who should have to file annual disclosure statements, and sometimes there is discussion about whether volunteers should be covered. But too often individuals and bodies not central to local government are ignored.

A difficult aspect of government ethics is the percentage of a company that must be owned by a government official in order for there to be a conflict of interest. The figure chosen for ethics codes is usually 5%.

The City Ethics Model Code uses the following language in defining "outside employer or business":