One of the principal reasons I have focused my energies on local
government ethics is that most people learn their government ethics at
the local level. What they see people doing on councils and zoning
boards, they do on state legislatures and commissions, and then again
at the federal level.<br>
<br>
But things go the other way, as well. Disdain for government ethics at
the state level can affect the ethics environments of that state's local
governments. This appears to be happening in Missouri.<br>

According to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=2009…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Tulsa <span>World</span></a>,
last week the city's Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC) ruled in favor of
one of its members, Michael Slankard, with respect to an advisory
opinion request by the city attorney. This situation raises several

Last month, the Georgia Senate unanimously passed <a href="http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sb96.htm&quot; target="”_blank”">a
bill</a> requiring every local governing body (including school boards) to create an ethics panel to
hear complaints regarding at least members of the local governing body and, in counties, elected constitutional
officers.<br>
<br>

The word is out:  if local government officials don't want to file
financial disclosure statements, all they have to do is <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/447&quot; target="”_blank”">resign en masse</a>
and whoever wrote the ethics code will not only rewrite it, but will
say all sorts of warm, wonderful things about them.<br>
<br>

Broward County (FL), home of Ft. Lauderdale, is working on ethics
reform, something Ft. Lauderdale itself did in 2007. Today, according
to <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/04/john…; target="”_blank”">a
piece</a> on the <span>Sun-Sentinel</span>
Broward Politics website, a county commissioner will be introducing a

The Nevada legislative immunity appellate briefs have been filed, and
they are worth reading for those interested in the intersection between government ethics enforcement and legislative
immunity, an intersection where, in the last year, there have been a few collisions harmful to the cause of government ethics. Although this case involves a state legislator, it is in some ways applicable to local government legislators.<br>
<br>

An important issue in local government ethics is how far jurisdiction
should go. Recently, I did <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/696&quot; target="”_blank”">a
blog entry</a> on jurisdiction over those doing government-approved
work. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/nyregion/11stadium.html&quot; target="”_blank”">An

One of the biggest problems people have with government ethics is
acknowledging the difference between ethics enforcement and ethics
practice. Ethics enforcement is legal. You cannot enforce rules that
are not in the law. But when it comes to ethics practice, the law
represents only the minimum requirement. The law is what you <span>have</span> to do, but an official can be
more ethical, more open, more responsible than what is required.
Officials have fiduciary duties that go far beyond the provisions of ethics codes.<br>

The saying goes that nice guys finish last. People who act ethically,
especially in politics, are rarely remembered.<br>
<br>
But there are, occasionally, exceptions. One of them, former Argentine
president Raúl Alfonsín, died last week, and he is being
memorialized all over the world for his decency.<br>
<br>

Individuals and companies doing the work of government or work approved by government, even when
they do not have a direct financial relationship with government, should be within the jurisdiction of a
government's ethics code. This controversial position is strengthened
by what happened to many Tennessee local governments, according to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08bond.html&quot; target="”_blank”">a front-page