Skip to main content

Constituent Services and Preferential Treatment Provisions

On April 30, the D.C. ethics board reached a settlement with a
council member (attached; see below), whereby he was admonished for
having "used the prestige of his office or his public position for
the private gain" of a company by influencing health department
personnel to leave the site of the business without issuing a notice
of closure, allowing the business to continue to operate for several
more hours.<br>
<br>
Some important issues are raised in this matter, including (1) the

D.C. Ethics Board's Flawed Recommendations for Reform

In January, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ethics-reform-testimony-dc-and-tallah…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post</a> about the District of Columbia ethics board's first
public forum seeking recommendations for ethics reform. On April 17,
the ethics board published a report that makes recommendations for
improvements to the city's ethics program (attached; see below).<br>
<br>

Gifts to Officials' Family Members

Many major cities do not prohibit gifts from those seeking special benefits from the city government (restricted sources) to
family members of city officials. Such a prohibition may seem a stretch,
at least theoretically. How can a government interfere in the gifts given to an official's family members? Consider this situation, from 2011, which recently became
public.<br>
<br>

A Miscellany

<b>Applicant Disclosure Is Good for Officials</b><br>
If Ontario or Mississauga required broad applicant disclosure,
Mississauga's mayor would not be in court this week arguing that she
didn't know that her son had invested in a huge hotel and convention