Poor Ethics Code Language

Are those who draft local government ethics codes unusually eccentric? Unusually clever? Or just lazy? Whichever it is, they don't seem to consider best practices, or even the practices of better ethics programs. Across the U.S.A., ethics code drafters seem to pull many of their provisions out of a hat. And as with Rocky the flying squirrel, sometimes they pull out a rabbit, sometimes a rhino, and sometimes Bullwinkle the moose.

The inspiration for this mini-rant is a Denver Post editorial this week about the need to fix the city's gift provision, which contains the following rule:

No more than a total of four meals, tickets, or free or reduced price admissions may be accepted from the same donor in any calendar year, regardless of the value

"Regardless of the value" means that the meals and tickets can be worth any amount. This odd provision allowed the mayor, his mother, and two staffers to accept a trip to the Super Bowl worth $40,000, paid by the Metro Denver Sports Commission, a nonprofit that tries to attract sports events to Denver. The gifts were apparently based on pledges made by at least two city contractors.

The best practice is to place a low aggregate annual limit on gifts from any restricted source, enough to prevent investigating de minimis violations, such as a snack at a meeting. The idea is that officials shouldn't be accepting gifts from restricted sources. A rule like Denver's creates a loophole for huge gifts. And where in the world did it come from? It's nowhere else to be found in my database of local ethics codes.

Actually, it's more important to ask, Where in the world might it go? A 2008 draft amendment to Pittsburgh's ethics code included similar language. Fortunately, this language never made it into the ethics code. It should be removed from Denver's before it gets picked up by another city, which can proudly say they got the language from Denver, so it must be good.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---