This is the place to discuss limitations on gifts to officials and employees, and their family members. Probably no other aspect of ethics codes has so many different solutions. Please share your thoughts about and experiences with various attempts at solving this basic problem, and suggest language that you feel works well.

This is the place to discuss recusal, that is, withdrawal from participation when there appears to be a conflict of interest. Also see Transactional Disclosure, in the "Disclosure" section, where this issue will also be discussed.

This is the place to discuss the special situation of legislators who are employed by the city, or have members of their household who are employed by the city, and how to handle this conflict.

This is the place to discuss what a conflict of interest is, and how close or what type of a relationship an official or employee must have with an individual or entity that has an interest, for that interest to be seen as conflicting with that official or employee's obligations to the public interest.

This is also the place to discuss certain conflict provisions missing from this code (such as outside employment), which are discussed in the comments to this subsection.

In detailing aspirational ethics -- that is, ethical conduct that will not be enforced by the Ethics Commission -- this Model Code goes a step beyond a declaration of policy and purpose. It includes the full text of the American Society for Public Administration's aspirational ethics code. Below is the ASPA Code and introductory comments about its inclusion in the Model Code.

Please comment on the value of including this aspirational code in an ethics code, and share any experience you have had with aspirational ethics codes.

This is the place to discuss disclosure of possible conflicts of interest at the point where they arise, that is, where an official or employee's continuing participation in a matter becomes a matter of concern because of a conflict between his or her government role and his or her other roles, business, professional, or personal.

This is the place to discuss the protection from mistreatment by superiors of municipal employees who file complaints or act as witnesses in ethics proceedings. Significant issues include the need and effectiveness of such protection, and the language necessary to make it effective as well as to prevent officials and employees from hiding behind it to make political attacks. Please share your experiences with various sorts of whistle-blower protection, as well as with instances where the lack of it has made a serious difference.

Following Mark Davies, I have placed definitions not at the front of the Code, where they usually appear, but at the end of the Ethics Provisions section. The reasoning behind this choice is that definitions should not be as important as they often are. Often, definitions include significant content, so that officials and employees must read the definitions before they can know what they are required to do. It is better to have officials focus on the plain meaning of ethics provisions, knowing that no extra duties will be imposed in the definitions, that there are no traps hidden there.

This is the place to discuss the establishment and the role of an Ethics Commission. The most important issue here is an Ethics Commission's independence: how important it is and how best a municipality can achieve it. With respect to EC independence and competence, please share your thoughts or experiences regarding regional and state Ethics Commissions vs. municipal ECs.

This is the place to discuss the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction, powers, and duties. The most controversial matter here is over whom an Ethics Commission should have jurisdiction: elected officials, unionized employees, consultants, candidates, people and entities that do business with the city or apply for something from the city, former officials and employees (and if so, for how long?)?