The most important division in ethics is between ends-based approaches (consequentialist or teleological, best known as "the ends justify the means") and rules-based approaches (deontological).

The most important problem for individuals in government is that we are taught rules-based approaches while we’re growing up (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), but in government most talk is in terms of ends (Will it raise taxes?).

Transparency is often seen as a technical, often annoying part of municipal ethics. All those notices and agendas that have to be filed at the right time in the right place, all those document requests from the news media and opposition parties. Is all this really necessary for good government? Does it lower taxes, provide better services? Or is it just a pain in the neck?

Sometimes you need a big disaster – Enron, for example – for people to understand the cost of not acting ethically.

<img src="files/ceco.gif" alt="" align="right">

<p>The <a href="http://www.ethics.org/&quot; target="_blank">Ethics Resource Center</a> in Washington DC has released an interesting document for anyone active in the <b>Ethics & Compliance Officer</b> field - see the quotes below which give a taste of the subject of the document:</p>
Note that they have removed the link to the paper. It may be elsewhere...

Has your city’s government grown up yet, ethically speaking?

This isn't as silly a question as it sounds. All of us develop morally, just as we develop physically and intellectually and emotionally. We just don’t see our height grow or get university degrees or get married and have children, ethically speaking.

Not one of the recent books in my ethics library cites Jane Jacobs’ 1993 work, <i>Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics</i>. The citations I found on-line do not include any about government ethics. This is a big loss for the government ethics community, because Jacobs, who died a couple of years ago, gave us a lot to think about. And we’ve been missing out.

I would like to nominate the new film <i>Charlie Wilson’s War,</i> a Mike Nichols film starring Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Julia Roberts, for the City Ethics <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/Top10+Ethics+Films">Top Ten Ethics Films list</a>.

In a very interesting step recently, the "<i>Zionsville Town Council approved 5-0 Monday, Dec. 3, an expanded <a href="http://www.timessentinel.com/local/local_story_339174630.html">conflict of interest policy</a> that includes a clause urging council members to recuse themselves from any vote involving a campaign contributor.</i>"

It is natural for a current or former firefighter to be interested in serving on a fire commission, or a current or former teacher in serving on a school board. But is there an ongoing conflict of interest in doing so?

The question arose on the Milford, Connecticut school board recently. Three members are former school teachers who held union leadership positions.

<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/350">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>

It seems so mean-spirited to talk about the conflicts of interest that arise from politicians’ charitable activities, but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?_r=1&adxnn… revelations about the Clinton Foundation</a> show, in big numbers, what happens so often, in smaller numbers, across the country.

<p><i>In this article published in the Orlando Sentinel, the "Consultant" referred to was <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/CarlaMiller">Carla Miller</a>, of CityEthics, in a workshop presented in the spring of 2007.</i></p>
<p>From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-ethics1707dec17,0…;