Self-promotion is the ultimate form of placing one's own interests over the public interest, but we expect it from politicians. It's an ego thing. It has no place in an ethics code.

But the four-term-plus sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ (which includes Phoenix and Scottsdale) has turned self-promotion into an extreme sport.

The situation discussed in the previous blog entry also provides a good example of why it is important to have a contract avoidance provision in a local government ethics code. Here is the one in the City Ethics Model Code:

Any contract, agreement, or other business transaction entered into by or with the city which results in or from a violation of any provision of sections 100 or 101 of this code is void, without further action taken, unless ratified by the city's legislative body in an open session held after applicable public notice. Such ratification does not affect the imposition of any penalties pursuant to this code or any other provision of law.

If Stratford had such a clause, the bidder would have asked its employee not to accept a position on the bid-review committee, knowing that any contract based on the bid might be declared void.

How do you deal with a department head who helps creates a conflict of interest problem that does not apply to him personally? Few ethics codes contain complicity provisions that deal with this problem. The City Ethics Model Code complicity provision begins: "No one may, directly or indirectly, induce, encourage, or aid anyone to violate any provision of this code...."

Life would be easier for honest politicians if there could be no intersection between government contracts and contributions to campaign and candidate-associated political committees. The possibility of Commerce Secretary nominee Bill Richardson's involvement in a New Mexico pay-to-play situation has led him to withdraw himself from the nomination process, according to an AP article today.

Assuming there is no relationship between $110,000 in contributions by a company and its principals, on the one hand, and its million-dollar contract from New Mexico, our country has for no reason lost the services of a highly respected individual.

Why can't honest politicians (and politicians who want to be perceived as honest) get together and outlaw contributions from contractors and contracts from contributors, so that such scandals become a thing of the past? This is at least as much a problem at the local government level as it is at the state and national level, although the dollar numbers may be smaller.

Addition: The contract involved bond consulting services. These contracts seem to be more trouble than most. Any official should steer clear of contributions from these firms, no matter what the law in the particular jurisdiction.

For all you local government legislative immunity fans, here's a case you'll enjoy (other local government ethics people should find it interesting, as well). A Virginia state senator has sued members of a city council for what they did in their legislative capacity, despite the fact that she knows she herself cannot be sued for what she's done in her legislative capacity. That's a nice start, isn't it?

Roland Burris's acceptance of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's offer of Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat is based on a willful, self-serving misunderstanding about the difference between ethics and law.

Here is what Burris told MSNBC in a December 31 interview (video and transcript):

I have been legally appointed by the governor of our state. It is my hope and prayer that my Democratic colleagues will recognize that what they are doing is not in any way, form, shape or fashion, legal. To deny me the seat based on some allegations by the appointee -- by the appointer -- really does not lend itself to disqualify me as an unqualified person to be appointed. ... The appointment is legal. I mean, no one has said his appointment is illegal. They just said his appointment is tainted. What does tainted have to do with legal? And I don't think it's even tainted, because his appointment, Rachel, is legal.

In my book, believing that whatever is legal is not tainted, is completely ethical, alone disqualifies former Illinois Attorney-General Burris as a candidate for the Senate. But how many politicians share this willful misunderstanding?

The International City/County Management Association (the city, county, and town manager professional organization) is holding a 90-minute audioconference on local government ethics on January 29. I do not know the details of the program, and I am not endorsing it, but it sounds like a very inexpensive way for local government managers and employees to share a professional presentation on local government ethics. The cost is $149 for members and $199 for non-members, but a room of people can listen in on a speakerphone or sound system for the price of one.

The case studies used will be emailed in advance, so that participants can be prepared. And these case studies can be discussed afterwards, as well. For more information, click here.

The Nevada legislative immunity opinion has come down. It's in two parts, searchable, 1 and 2. There's also a Las Vegas Review-Journal article on the decision, which says that the ethics commission plans to appeal the decision.

Despite its finding against the state ethics commission's jurisdiction over state legislators, there is good news for local government ethics practitioners. Since the state constitution does not have a Speech or Debate Clause, the court based its decision primarily on separation of powers. And it states that the decision does not apply to local or regional legislators (p. 17-18):

What's the best reason for mayoral candidates not to disclose their finances, monies received directly or indirectly from the city, etc.? Just ask some of the candidates running to replace disgraced Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. According to an article in today's Detroit Free Press, candidate Dave Bing has made full disclosure of his and his wife's finances, including stock in a development company involved in a condo project in Detroit (which he says he is trying to divest, supposedly at a substantial loss) and a tax abatement one of his companies received a couple of administrations ago.

His 14 rivals "dismissed the move as a gimmick."

It's pop quiz time. Read the following ethics code provision and hypothetical, and answer the question that follows them.