You are here
Illinois Model Local Government Ethics Ordinance -- Inspiration for Michigan's and Even Worse
Sunday, November 15th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
I recently critiqued
the new Michigan
model local government ethics ordinance. Mark Liss, a council
member in Michigan alerted me (and the world in his blog) to the new model's
similarities with the Illinois
model local government ethics ordinance, which was drafted in 2003.
He even does a side-to-side
comparison of the model ordinances' gift bans.
I don't have a problem with ethics code plagiarism. Ethics codes aren't copyrighted, and there's no reason to recreate the wheel. But it is always good to give credit where it is due (as I do with the City Ethics model code, whose principal inspiration was one done by Mark Davies).
My guess is, the reason the Michigan attorney-general did not give credit to the Illinois model ordinance is that no one would want to admit that he turned to Illinois for ethics advice.
The Illinois model code's administration provisions do differ in important ways from Michigan's. Instead of an ethics ombudsman that does little, there is an ethics advisor that actually is meant to provide ethics advice. Unfortunately, my google search came up with local government attorneys, city managers, and local government legislators filling this role more often than independent appointees.
The Illinois model code requires the creation of an ethics commission (the Michigan model code does not), and this commission, although too small (three members), without the power to initiate an investigation itself, and appointed by the executive officer with legislative approval (insufficiently independent), at least has teeth, unlike in Michigan.
However, in Illinois, penalties require a showing of intent, which is very difficult to prove. It would be hard to fine any official or employee who says he didn't know he was violating the ethics code.
Neither model ordinance provides all the basics of an ethics code. Neither says anything about ethics training, neither guarantees independent ethics advice, and neither provides an independent ethics commission that has both teeth and a reasonable burden of proof.
As for ethics provisions, the Illinois model ordinance is not even minimal. It only deals with political activities and gifts. There is nothing about conflicts; the word doesn't even appear. To call it an ethics ordinance is like calling a burglary law a criminal code.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
I don't have a problem with ethics code plagiarism. Ethics codes aren't copyrighted, and there's no reason to recreate the wheel. But it is always good to give credit where it is due (as I do with the City Ethics model code, whose principal inspiration was one done by Mark Davies).
My guess is, the reason the Michigan attorney-general did not give credit to the Illinois model ordinance is that no one would want to admit that he turned to Illinois for ethics advice.
The Illinois model code's administration provisions do differ in important ways from Michigan's. Instead of an ethics ombudsman that does little, there is an ethics advisor that actually is meant to provide ethics advice. Unfortunately, my google search came up with local government attorneys, city managers, and local government legislators filling this role more often than independent appointees.
The Illinois model code requires the creation of an ethics commission (the Michigan model code does not), and this commission, although too small (three members), without the power to initiate an investigation itself, and appointed by the executive officer with legislative approval (insufficiently independent), at least has teeth, unlike in Michigan.
However, in Illinois, penalties require a showing of intent, which is very difficult to prove. It would be hard to fine any official or employee who says he didn't know he was violating the ethics code.
Neither model ordinance provides all the basics of an ethics code. Neither says anything about ethics training, neither guarantees independent ethics advice, and neither provides an independent ethics commission that has both teeth and a reasonable burden of proof.
As for ethics provisions, the Illinois model ordinance is not even minimal. It only deals with political activities and gifts. There is nothing about conflicts; the word doesn't even appear. To call it an ethics ordinance is like calling a burglary law a criminal code.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments