Corporate executives have obligations not only to stockholders, but
also to other stakeholders, including customers, creditors, and the
greater community. However, government officials, at least from the
government ethics point of view, have overwhelming obligations only
to members of their immediate community. Is this right?<br>
<br>

It's always disheartening to see high-level officials
misuse an ethics program for the sake of personal revenge or, as the official says in
the case I'm looking at here, to get "my name cleared."<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/local/former-mayor-files-ethics-complaint…; target="”_blank”">an

It's a good idea for states to encourage the creation of local
government ethics programs by drafting model ethics codes. It's also
a good idea for states to require minimal local government ethics
provisions. What is not good is model codes and minimal requirements
that are not accompanied by explanations and do not provide

<b>A Complex School Board Conflict Situation</b><br>
Should someone closely associated with an organization that has been awarded a sizeable preschool contract be prevented from sitting on a school board when the
contract was not with the school board? That is
one of the questions raised by <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-ed-board-member-denies-c…; target="”_blank”">an

An interesting question arose in an ethics proceeding in Kennesaw,
GA, a city of 30,000 just outside of Atlanta. According to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/resident-amends-ethics-complaint-1479712.h…; target="”_blank”">an

<br>Anyone who has seen the movie <i>Chinatown</i> has some idea how much
ethical misconduct went into the ongoing battles over water in
California. Those who want to get down to the nitty gritty of it
will enjoy Robert Gottlieb and Margaret Fitzsimmon's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=led17FVPnr0C&q&quot; target="”_blank”"><i>Thirst
for Growth: Water Agencies as Hidden Government in California</i></a>

If you read the newspapers and blogs, the big issues in the
Chicago Chick-fil-A controversy are free speech and government
boycotts. But it's really a government ethics issue.<br>
<br>
All rational voices acknowledge that a local legislator should not
block a store opening just because it has given large sums to help
an unpopular political cause. What they aren't saying is that a
local legislator shouldn't be able to block a store opening in his

<b>Update:</b> July 27, 2012 (see below)<br>
According to <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20120725_Law_firm_loses_…; target="”_blank”">an

Talk about independent expenditures usually refers to such
expenditures in support, or more often in opposition to, federal
candidates. At the local level, the major independent expenditures
tend to come from unions, both public service unions and
construction unions. There are also cases where independent
expenditures come from contractors and others seeking direct benefits from
the candidates they support or oppose. This can look very much like
a payoff for favors done and/or for future favors, generally referred to as pay to play.<br>

One of the things that really ticks citizens off is when a local
official uses his position to try to get out of a traffic ticket.
The financial benefit may be minor, but there are two
things that are major. One is that this conduct suggests that
favoritism is common in the government. That is, the expectation and provision of special treatment is an indication of
institutional corruption.<br>
<br>
The second thing that can be major is the benefit when the charge is