City Related

Electing local government employees to local government office can
cause problems. There are constitutional protections against forbidding
it, but there are conflict of interest arguments against doing it.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1549021,042909chmayor.article&quot; target="”_blank”">an

How often should ethics commissions meet?<br>
<br>
The usual answer to that question is, As often as they need to. But how
often is that?<br>
<br>

Massachusetts has an
interesting, but I think limited <a href="http://www.mass.gov/ethics/web268A.htm&quot; target="”_blank”">ethics provision</a> that applies to local government board members and jobs under their board's supervision:<br>
<br>

Requiring supermajority votes by ethics commissions to find probable
cause or a violation is probably the best obstacle elected officials can
place in the way of effective ethics enforcement. This is especially true of
the probable cause phase, if there is one.<br>
<br>

Here's an ethics story from Orlando with a good ending. It emphasizes <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/715&quot; target="”_blank”">what I wrote recently</a>,
that government ethics involves dealing responsibly with conflict
situations.<br>
<br>

Once again, it has been proven that placing ethics in the hands of prosecutors can be damaging
to the cause of government ethics. The proof this time is in the state prosecutor's
opposition to the Baltimore mayor's motion to dismiss criminal ethics
charges against her, partially on account of legislative immunity.<br>
<br>

Booms and busts are common not only in a financial system. They are
also common in government ethics.<br>
<br>
Booms are when things are good, when local politicians seem worthy of
our trust. Busts are when we find out that things aren't what they
seemed. In other words, when there's a scandal.<br>
<br>

Who is covered by an ethics code can be very important. In Baltimore,
for instance, as I wrote in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/706&quot; target="”_blank”">a recent blog entry</a>, the
city solicitor has interpreted the ethics code to require disclosure of
gifts only from companies doing business with the city, not from their
owners, officers, or employees.<br>
<br>

It had to happen soon:  a legislative immunity defense has been
used in a local government ethics matter, albeit in a city where violations
are criminally prosecuted. I happened upon it in my research on my last
blog entry, about the Baltimore mayor's defenses of her taking gifts
from a city developer when she was president of the city council.<br>
<br>

<b>Update below</b>:<br>
The controversy in Baltimore over the mayor's acceptance of gifts from
a developer whose companies have received a great deal of funding from
the city appears now to be focused on whether or not the mayor was required to disclose these gifts, since the developer did not personally do business with the city.<br>
<br>