Ethics Commissions/Administration

The relationship between San Diego's council and ethics commission continues to prove unhealthy. It shows how wrong it is for elected officials to appoint and control the body that oversees their conduct.

One way of describing government ethics is that it involves the use and abuse of the power that goes with government officials' positions. Not all such abuses are covered by ethics laws, of course. This blog post looks at an instance of abuse that is not covered. It involves a state legislature and, especially, one state representative, in a state where local ethics is handled at the state level.

According to an article in Town Talk, an allegation against the mayor of Alexandria (LA) of ignoring a conflict of interest has led to some all too typical denial, squabbling, and inappropriate city attorney activity.

Ethics reform is difficult without a scandal. If your local government doesn't have an ethics commission, it's hard to form one. If there's an ethics commission without teeth, it's hard to even get dentures. And in Denver, according to an article in the Denver Post, it's hard to even get information about what happens after a toothless ethics commission recommends disclipinary action.

There are many right and wrong ways to select an ethics commission. The rightest ways take the selection process out of the hands of anyone who could possibly come before the EC, because that places a conflict of interest at the very center of a process intended to guide and enforce the responsible handling of conflicts. The rightest ways also prevent anyone who could possibly come before the EC, or their colleagues, from...

An article in the Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise this week raises two interesting government ethics issues. One involves conflicts based on a business-related desire to have good relations with the local government. The other involves conflicts based on campaign contributions to elected officials who serve on an ethics commission.