In the news

Booms and busts are common not only in a financial system. They are also common in government ethics.

Booms are when things are good, when local politicians seem worthy of our trust. Busts are when we find out that things aren't what they seemed. In other words, when there's a scandal.

Government officials should, I think, focus more on what their actions teach Americans. In effect, each of them is teaching an ongoing civics course.

For many years, Congress have been giving us a course on how self-regulation in the ethics sphere simply doesn't work.

It had to happen soon:  a legislative immunity defense has been used in a local government ethics matter, albeit in a city where violations are criminally prosecuted. I happened upon it in my research on my last blog entry, about the Baltimore mayor's defenses of her taking gifts from a city developer when she was president of the city council.

Update below:
The controversy in Baltimore over the mayor's acceptance of gifts from a developer whose companies have received a great deal of funding from the city appears now to be focused on whether or not the mayor was required to disclose these gifts, since the developer did not personally do business with the city.

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.

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...

According to an article in the Tulsa World, 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 interesting issues.