<br>
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In English: Who will guard the guardians? This
is a question many people ask about ethics commissions. But the
question I would like to raise is, Is this the right question to ask?<br>
<br>

One of the biggest differences between unethical conduct and criminal
conduct by government officials is the matter of proving intent. For
example, a bribe is nothing more than a gift to a government official
where it has been proven that the official intentionally took a gift in return for certain conduct. In government ethics, taking a gift beyond a certain value is all that needs to be proven to show misconduct. The official's conduct, beyond accepting the gift, is
irrelevant, as is the official's intent.<br>
<br>

Georgia seems intent on providing an entire course on the ethical
obligations of government attorneys. This time it's the obligations of
the state's top government attorney, the attorney general. There's also
an issue concerning special government attorneys.<br>
<br>

Here's another blog post about a Georgian who wants out of EC jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Some ethics commissions, especially state ethics commissions, have no
jurisdiction over officials once they leave office. Especially when ECs
require confidentiality regarding complaints until probable cause is
found, this lack of jurisdiction allows officials to resign before
their unethical conduct becomes public. And it allows officials to
evade enforcement.<br>
<br>

Government lawyers enjoy exceptions to transparency laws. Should they
also be excepted from government ethics laws? Atlanta senior assistant
city attorney Robert N. Godfrey thinks so, according to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/board-puts-attorneys…
article in yesterday's Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>.<br>
<br>

After all the problems San Diego pension boards have had with conflicts
of interest (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/local-government-employees-local-gove…; target="”_blank”">my
blog pos</a>t from November 2009), one would think they would be
extra-sensitive to further conflicts. But, alas, not in this case.<br>
<br>

The tendency of local government ethics codes to limit conflicts to
financial interests is one of my pet peeves. A
current matter in Tacoma shows the downside of this limited definition
of interests that can conflict.<br>
<br>

There are many obstacles to local governments working together or
merging in order to provide services at lower costs to taxpayers, but
the one that is hardest to put a finger on is the self-interest of
officials. Or at least that's how I read a new report from Wisconsin's <a href="http://www.localgovinstitute.org/&quot; target="”_blank”">Local Government Institute</a>

The perceived independence of an ethics commission is extremely
important. This perceived independence has become an issue in Frankfort
(KY), according to <a href="http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/4794079&quot; target="”_blank”">an article in
Tuesday's <i>State-Journal</i></a>.<br>
<br>

It's been four days since <a href="http://www.sunshineweek.org/&quot; target="”_blank”">Sunshine
Week</a> ended, but it's not too late to point out <a href="http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Main_Page&quot; target="”_blank”">Sunshine Review</a>'s