Update below
The only thing worse than stacking ethics commissions with politically
active, and apparently loyal, members is refusing to renew the term of
a member who has been a vocal advocate of government ethics, in other
words, a thorn in the side of officials who do not follow the local
government's ethics codes. Clever officials know that one or two
members of any board can have a strong effect on
what the board does.
A few local government ethics issues come together in the story
behind the arrest today of 44 people in a political corruption and
international money laundering ring based in New Jersey. The story is
best told, so far, in the
press release of the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
While so many local governments don't take conflicts seriously enough
to require recusal, some take conflicts too seriously, and overreact.
This appears to be what happened in Elizabethtown (NY), according to an
article in yesterday's Press-Republican.
In a blog post
yesterday, I noted that North Carolina was soon to require local
governments to pass ethics codes. I've now found out more about the
proposed law, and it is disappointing, to say the least.
What just happened in San Diego, according to an
article in yesterday's Union-Tribune,
is a lesson for local government ethics commission members,
especially commission chairs, and even more especially chairs who speak
out. Most important, it points out how important EC independence is.
Last week, I wrote
about municipal corruption scandals in Montreal. This week, I'm happy
to be able to write about a report requested by the province of Quebec,
which determined that the province's municipalities should all have a
code of ethics (only about 10% do now), that the largest cities and the
counties should have ethics commissioners, and that financial
disclosure and ethics training should be required. Contractors would be
covered under the codes.
See update below:
An issue that arises in many local governments involves campaign
contributions from local government employees, which often appear to be
coerced or required, that is, they appear to result from a misuse of
office by elected officials. Often, it appears that the giving occurs
because employees are concerned about keeping their jobs. This
concern includes concern about retaliation as well as concern about
what will happen if the candidate loses.