In ethics, there are two basic approaches: (1) an ends-based
approach, also referred to as utilitarian or consequentialist; and
(2) a means-based approach, also referred to as rules-based or
deontological. Government officials, and most people when speaking
about government, generally use the former, while government ethics
uses the latter. This causes a lot of problems.<br>
<br>
Therefore, it is very heartening to see an academic taking a
critical look at ends-based approaches to solving a governmental

It's been over two years since <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/large-contracts-bid-rigging-and-pensi…; target="”_blank”">I
wrote</a> about the indictments of former Detroit mayor Kwame
Kilpatrick, his father, and a city contractor. This morning,

People (including government officials) usually talk about conflict
situations as if they involved the public (represented by do-good
ethics types) trying to get public servants (who are represented as
corrupt) to sacrifice either their family, friends, or business
opportunities or their duty to do their jobs as representatives or
officials.<br>
<br>
This is sad, because this leads people to ignore the other side to conflict situations:  the effect living and dealing

From the Florida Times Union 4 Feb 2013:
"<i>Floridians have an ironclad right to be in the room when government boards make decisions that affect their lives.
But speaking their minds about those decisions is a different story. A chain of court cases around the state have concluded the law that lets citizens watch open government doesn’t entitle them to talk to the boards making the decisions.
Jacksonville’s ethics director is trying to change that, at least close to home.</i>"

I begin the "Intent" section of my book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/ethics%20book&quot; target="”_blank”"><i>Local Government Ethics Programs</i></a> by
noting that, "One of the distinguishing aspects of government ethics
is the fact that it does not deal with or require a showing of
intent, willfulness, knowledge, or motive."<br>
<br>
The next sentence is, "This is yet another reason why the criminal

In this, the third blog post on the Colorado ethics commission
situation, I would like to look at the problems that can arise from
placing an ethics code in a constitutional document, either a
charter or, as in the Colorado case, the state constitution.<br>
<br>
It is an unfortunate fact that, in many jurisdictions, legislators
are so opposed to the creation of an effective government ethics
program that the task of ethics reform can be accomplished only via
charter revision or a referendum. In other instances, ethics

The Colorado ethics commission matter that I discussed in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/total-gift-bans-and-legal-defense-fun…; target="”_blank”">my
last blog post</a> points to yet another reason why ethics
commissions must have their own counsel, and a sufficient budget to
pay that counsel.<br>
<br>

A February draft advisory opinion from the <a href="http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DPA-IEC/IEC/1208597599325&quot; target="”_blank”">Colorado

Most of George Frederickson's lecture, "<a href="http://academic.udayton.edu/richardghere/MPA%20524/2011%20course/Freder…; target="”_blank”">Searching for Virtue in the Public Life: Revisiting the Vulgar Ethics Thesis</a>," involves what he calls "the modern extended state," the "vast public
sea" in which governments float. This public sea includes

After reading <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/bridging-gulf-between-administrative-…; target="”_blank”">my recent blog post about bridging the gulf between administrative
and government ethics</a>, one of the great scholars of public
administration, George Frederickson, sent me a copy of a 2009
lecture of his, which appeared in 2010 in the journal <i>Public