Conflicts of interest are not always positive, any more than
relationships are always positive. And conflicts are based on
relationships.<br>
<br>
We tend to think of an official using his position to help a family
member or business associate. But sometimes officials use their
position to harm someone with whom they have a negative
relationship, anyone from a former in-law (the bum who dumped my
sister) or current in-law (that woman who's driving my brother

There are two interesting wrinkles in the Forest Park, GA case I
wrote about in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problems-ec-jurisdiction-over-charter…; target="”_blank”">the

It is unethical for a local official to violate a law, especially
the city or county charter. But such a violation is usually not a
government ethics violation, because it has nothing to do with conflicts
of interest. It may be a misuse of office, but it is not a misuse of office to benefit oneself, one's family, or one's business associates.<br>
<br>
And yet some ethics codes contain a provision making a
legal or charter violation an ethics violation. Here is one from

Six years ago, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/257&quot; target="”_blank”">a
blog post</a> on apology (including full disclosure) in the
medical context. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-when…; target="”_blank”">Today's

In my book Local Government Ethics Programs, I have argued for the language of "benefit" instead of the language of "interest." (for some of the reasons why, click here and search for "terminology"). When a colleague asked me for a list of the jurisdictions that do, in fact, use the language of "benefit," I did some eye-opening research.

Court decisions, especially when combined with criminal enforcement
of ethics violations, can be very harmful to local government ethics. The court in a Monterey County case involving a serious <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/californias-contract-oriented-conflic…; target="”_blank”">§1090</a>
conflict of interest matter that officials were not only aware of,

<b>Who Should Oversee Nepotism Rules?</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-Reps-revamp-anti-…; target="”_blank”">an article in the Stamford (CT) <i>Advocate</i> last week</a>, Stamford's Board
of Representatives voted to amend an anti-nepotism bill to instead
require the city's human resources director to draft a nepotism

<a href="http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Ethics-laws-outdated-not-used…; target="”_blank”">An
investigative article in Sunday's Albany <i>Times-Union</i></a> looks at
the local government ethics programs in 78 local governments in four
New York counties. What it found is sadly typical in most states.<br>
<br>
What it found was that at least 30 of the governments had not

<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/increased-ec-authority-and-access-ann…; target="”_blank”">Yesterday's
blog post</a> discussed the law giving California's Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) authority over §1090
of the state code, which deals with contract-related conflicts of
interest and applies to both local and state officials. Knowing little about this section, which stands outside

Some good news from California, which takes an odd, hybrid approach
to local government ethics. It has a state ethics commission (the
Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)) that has limited
authority over local officials in the areas of conflicts of interest
and campaign finance. And the state has many local government ethics
programs, which are all over the place in terms of quality and areas
over which they have authority.<br>
<br>
The first piece of good news is that the FPPC has been given the