A controversy currently going on in Fairfield, CT reminded me that one
of the more easily misunderstood provisions of an ethics code is
the special consideration, preferential treatment, or favoritism
provision. The version in the City Ethics Model Code reads as follows:<br>
<br>

I may seem obsessed with legislative immunity, but it is both a timely
topic for so old a constitutional concept and a serious threat to local government ethics enforcement that, I feel, the government ethics
community should start dealing with offensively rather than, as it is
now being handled, defensively.<br>
<br>

I hadn't realized it, but two weeks ago Rhode Island Superior Court <a href="http://www.courts.state.ri.us/superior/pdf/07-6666.pdf&quot; target="”_blank”">Judge
Francis J. Darigan dismissed</a> a state ethics commission case against
the state's former senate president, William V. Irons, due to

The DiMasi case, discussed in the most recent blog entry, is not the
only ethics case in Massachusetts that has drawn a lot of attention.
The result of a perception of increasing ethical misconduct has led the
governor to appoint a new task force on public integrity, according to <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles…; target="”_blank”">an

This week, another state ethics commission is facing a defense of
legislative immunity. The state is
Massachusetts, and the legislator happens to be the speaker of the
house, Sal DiMasi.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/07/dimasi_asserts_imm…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Boston Globe</a>, one allegation against DiMasi (filed,

I recently discovered that, in May, the Austin's Office of the City
Auditor did <a href="http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/downloads/as08103.pdf&quot; target="”_blank”">an
extensive report </a>on the city's ethics program, and compared it
with 16 comparable American cities (Arlington (TX), Dallas, El Paso,
Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Kansas City

One of the most important elements of any government ethics program
is ethical hiring. Ethical hiring lowers the possibility of hiring people
with serious conflicts of interest not only by being careful about the
selection process, but also by sending a clear message that conflicts
are serious business and must be disclosed even before an official is hired. Unethical people will find the hiring process, and the thought of working for people who would put them through it, unacceptable and will not
apply.<br>
<br>

<i>See update below</i><br>
A central element of government ethics is that preferential treatment is bad.
Preferential treatment is bad when it involves favoring officials' businesses or
family members over other businesses and individuals. Preferential treatment is
even bad when it involves officials' favorite charities. And preferential treatment
is especially bad when it involves officials' religions.<br>
<br>
What makes me say that this is especially bad? Because it's in the

California's Proposition 11 raises an interesting conflict of interest
issue for local governments whose council members
represent districts. Proposition 11 is <span></span>"a plan to set up a 14-member
citizens commission to draw district boundaries for state Senate,
Assembly and Board of Equalization seats. State lawmakers currently
have that power."<br>

While we're in Nevada, there's another interesting case before the
state's ethics commission that has ramifications for local government
ethics. According to <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/27047149.html&quot; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal</a>, a probable cause hearing
was to be conducted by one Democratic and one Republican commission
member. When it turned out that the case had been brought by the