One of the problems in talking about conflicts of interest is that we
tend to assume that people with conflicts analyze their situations
before acting. We think that, for example, they balance acting in their
personal interest, or in the interest of a family member or business
associate, against the consequences of getting caught. Or we think that
the principal ethical considerations they bring to bear on their
situation arise from their local code of ethics or their spiritual or
philosophical beliefs.<br>
<br>

Bailey has a word for putting the organization ahead of the individual:  holism (as opposed to individualism). What
complicates this concept in government is that there are two wholes,
the organization itself and the community it works for. One of the
things that most determines a local government's ethical environment is
which of the two wholes an official or employee is most supposed to put
above his or her personal interest.<br>
<br>

<b>Update:</b> September 6, 2010 (see below)<br>
<br>
For many local government employees, gratuities are the principal way
in which an ethics code affects them, because many ethics code prohibit
gratuities. But are they really a government ethics issue? In other
words, does a government employee, say a sanitation worker, have a
conflict or create an appearance of impropriety by accepting a tip from
a citizen for whom he has done routine work?<br>
<br>

The Missouri Ethics Commission has put up <a href="http://www.mec.mo.gov/WebDocs/Training/SB844Overview/index.htm&quot; target="”_blank”">a
nice slideshow-with-audio presentation</a> on the many <a href="http://www.mec.mo.gov/EthicsWeb/Feature.aspx&quot; target="”_blank”">changes made</a>

The principal problem with getting one's ethics from one's organization is that, according to Bailey, “Organizations seem to have a poorly developed sense of right and wrong. Expediency all too often comes out ahead of morality. Organizations and institutions are supposed to be the guardians of trust and fair dealing, but often there is no one to guard the guardians and — self interest being a prime mover — they look after their own good rather than the public good. ...

<h2>"The worst thing you can do is read the [ethics] law like a lawyer and
look for loopholes."<br></h2>
<br>
—Richard H. A. Washburn, training manager with the New York State <a href="http://www.nyintegrity.org/&quot; target="”_blank”">Commission
on Public Integrity</a> in a training session with St. Lawrence

In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Individuals-Self-Respect-Obligation-Paper…; target="”_blank”"><i>The
Kingdom
of
Individuals</i></a> (Cornell University Press, 1993), F. G.
Bailey's principal concern is what he calls svejks (pronounced
"shvikes"), that is, individuals in organizations who put their

It is troubling that legislators insist that legislative immunity
protects them in order that they may represent their constituents, and
yet legislative bodies rarely have rules to ensure that their members
represent their constituents by showing up to debate and vote.<br>
<br>
The result is that some legislators, at every level, do not adequately
represent their constituents by showing up to work. And often voters do
not know. This may not be something that can be enforced by a local

<b>Update: September 26, 2010</b> (see below)<br>
<br>
Disclosure forms are important. Sometimes, even secondary information
can be important. But it can take a lot of work to get behind the
information that appears on disclosure forms. And when you do get behind the
information, it can look real ugly, even if it's completely legal.<br>
<br>

<b>Updates: August 24 and 26, 2010</b> (see below)<br>
<br>
For those who, like me, believe that neither a mayor nor a local
legislative body nor a city attorney has any business getting involved in the government
ethics process, here's an example you can use of the mess they can make when they
do get involved.<br>
<br>