Philadelphia, Baltimore, and now Louisville have come up with ethics reforms in the past week or so. Baltimore's reforms were disappointing, while Philadelphia's were a big surprise to everyone, and came with a few serious question marks. Louisville's reforms are hardly a surprise, and they stand somewhere between disappointing and true reform.

One of the best descriptions of an unethical environment in a government agency can be found in the two-page statement that followed the guilty plea of David Loglisci, the former chief investment officer for the New York state pension fund.

It's been four months since my latest update on San Bernardino County's failure to follow grand jury ethics reform recommendations with any action. An op-ed piece by Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, in this week's San Bernardino Sun calls for campaign contribution limits (there are currently none at all), a prohibition on off-year fundraising, disclosure requirements, and an ethics commission to enforce the law.

Just down the road from Philadelphia, Baltimore too is considering ethics reforms, but it's in response to a scandal involving its past mayor rather than in response to the work of a task force.

There are two bills before the Baltimore council, both of them introduced while the new mayor was council president. One makes changes to the city's ethics board composition and ethics training, the other to the city's ethics code. Neither is much to get excited about.

Last December, I listed the major recommendations of Philadelphia's Task Force on Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform in its 58-page report.

According to an article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, just three months later, fifteen of seventeen city council members have co-sponsored a series of ethics reform bills. That sounds like good, fast work that deserves some serious applause.

But there are some big question marks. One is that none of the bills are available online. Each bill is given a bill-less page (1  2  3  4   5; also see the March 4 council minutes for a full list of the bills and sponsors), and in one case there is even a link to a bill, but the link doesn't work. So I am dependent, for now, on what I read in the newspaper.

Last week, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley responded to the conviction of yet another alderman by proposing (i) that the Inspector General's office oversee the city's hiring program for fairness, instead of the Office of Compliance the mayor set up in 2007; (ii) that the IG's office take jurisdiction over the council (whose members are called "aldermen") and their staff, something the council rejected twenty years ago, and ever since; (iii) that city workers and contractors who fail to report corrupt activity be punished; (iv) that the IG office's investigative reports be posted online, minus the names of those involved; and (v) that the IG's office get a guaranteed minimum budget. Click here to see a video of the mayor's proposal.