Sometimes a conflict situation makes you take a fresh look at common
ethics provisions. This is true of a matter that has arisen in
Poughkeepsie, New York (pronounced Pah-kip'-see), home of Vassar
College, according to <a href="http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20110125/NEWS01/101250320/De…; target="”_blank”">an
article

In a Pay to Play Law Blog response to <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/responding-arguments-against-signific…; target="”_blank”">my
recent blog post</a> on a discussion that had appeared in the Pay to
Play Law Blog, the argument is made that pay-to-play laws that go
beyond disclosure, such as prohibiting campaign contributions from
government contractors, set up a slippery slope toward the undermining

Alabama's new governor, Robert Bentley, said last week in a speech that people who do not accept Jesus as their
savior are not his brother or his sister. Leaving the religious aspects
of this aside, there are two important government ethics issues here,
one involving preferential treatment and the other involving the
core government ethics issue, the confusion of self and office.<br>
<br>

The most underrated aspect of accountability is the need for government
officials to honestly and publicly explain why they do what they do.
This need is strongest for two groups of officials:  elected representatives
and their watchdogs.<br>
<br>
It is, therefore, painful to see the chair of a major county board of
ethics refusing to even speak to the press about his own possible

There are several problems with Houston's new ethics provisions, in
addition to what I pointed out in my last blog post. Some of them are
typical, some of them are unusual. The ethics reform ordinance is attached;
see below; <a href="http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10123&stateId=43&stateN…; target="”_blank”">the
old
ethics ordinance can be found by clicking here</a> and scrolling down

Last week, the Houston council passed a number of amendments to its
ethics ordinance. They were billed as a big step forwards, but I do not
agree. In this post, I will look at what people have been saying about
the reforms and how the role of the ethics commission has changed. In
the next post I will take a critical look at the new provisions.<br>
<br>

<a href="http://www.paytoplaylawblog.com/2011/01/articles/lay-of-the-land-2011/#…; target="”_blank”">This
week, the Pay to Play Law Blog</a> took a snapshot of the status of
pay-to-play laws across the country, breaking them down into four
categories:  jurisdictions that impose significant restrictions,
including debarment; jurisdictions that require disclosure;
jurisdictions with limited requirements; and jurisdictions that are

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/16/AR20110…; target="”_blank”">Yesterday's
Washington Post has a long article</a> on a topic one would expect to find in a law review: the effect of the Constitution's Speech or Debate
Clause on the prosecution of members of Congress.<br>
<br>
The article starts out with a strong statement: "A constitutional clash

The recent discussion of the use of violent imagery in political talk caused me to take
a look at my own use of violent imagery, and to consider what is wrong about the use of such imagery, especially with respect to government ethics.<br>
<br>

Insurance is a big area for abuse in local government. It usually
constitutes a sizeable dollar percentage of a town's contracts, and an
insurance broker who works in government can use his or her position to
get the insurance business of companies that do or want to do business
with the town. And insurance is an area few people understand, and
which no department, office, or board may be responsible for overseeing.<br>
<br>