Advisory Opinions

The idea of a designated driver was a great idea (thank you,
Scandinavia). The idea of the designated hitter was a lousy idea
(yes, I'm a National Leaguer).<br>
<br>
How about a designated ethics aide? A staff member assigned by a
local legislator, or department or agency head, to be her point person on conflicts
of interest is much more like a designated driver than a designated
hitter. Like someone with a few drinks under her belt, an official
in a conflict situation has a blurry vision of her conflicts and

It is very damaging when a government official misrepresents ethics
advice he has been given. What should an ethics officer or
commission do when this happens? In many cases, such advice,
especially when it is provided informally, is confidential. When an
official makes a public statement about such advice, the EC
spokesperson can say nothing but "No comment." This allows the
official to say whatever he likes.<br>
<br>
This situation was answered skillfully by the Massachusetts Ethics

<h4>"The code of conduct guiding U.S. judges is not technically binding
on Supreme Court justices. But we choose to follow it. The Judicial
Conference [of the United States] has a committee on judicial ethics
that will give advisory opinions to judges who have questions about
whether something is ethical. I always check with that committee.
... [An example of a question, answer, and handling of the
situation.] ... that’s an example of how I’m insulated by that
committee."</h4><br>

Kudos to the editorial board of the St. Louis <i>Post-Dispatch</i> for
inventing a new local government ethics term in <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-dys…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial yesterday</a>. The term is "dyscronia."<br>
<br>

Two of the most important elements of a government ethics program
are the appearance (and reality) of independence and a monopoly on
ethics advice and enforcement. The government ethics program that
has jurisdiction over the greatest number of local officials and
employees in the U.S. has problems with respect to both of these elements. And
its commission's selection of a new executive director, after two years without
a formal director, emphasizes both of these problems.<br>
<br>

Some people incorrectly believe that a conflict of interest requires an official
not to vote in such a way as to benefit himself. That is, if the
official might benefit from a vote, it's okay for him to vote
against it, because that shows that the official is not seeking to
benefit himself.<br>
<br>
What is odd is to see this position taken by an ethics commission.

According to <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23453397/colorado-secretary-s…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Denver <i>Post</i> last week,</a>these are the words of Colorado's Secretary of State after the state
ethics commission found him in violation of an ethics provision, on
account of using state funds to attend the Republican national

“Incompatible offices” is a form of
conflict that is usually left out of ethics codes. One reason is
that there is
a common law prohibition against officials holding incompatible
offices. But
whether or not the conflict is common law or in an ethics code, this
is an
important kind of conflict that should be included in ethics
training so that
it is understood. It should also be a topic for which officials may
seek ethics
advice.<br>
<br>
There are

The Colorado ethics commission matter that I discussed in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/total-gift-bans-and-legal-defense-fun…; target="”_blank”">my
last blog post</a> points to yet another reason why ethics
commissions must have their own counsel, and a sufficient budget to
pay that counsel.<br>
<br>

A February draft advisory opinion from the <a href="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DPA-IEC/IEC/1208597599325&quot; target="”_blank”">Colorado