Complaints/ Investigations/Hearings

Nepotism is
often left out of ethics codes because it does not seem all that unethical. Another reason for leaving nepotism out is that it is
so common, especially in the uniformed departments, that local
government officials are afraid to touch it. When nepotism rules do
appear, they often provide for grandfathering in current
nepotism, and for waivers, even if waivers are not available for other
ethics code violations.<br>
<br>

Gov. Sarah Palin's national fame has brought government ethics
complaints to the attention of people who had never paid any attention
to them. And the result has, in general, been one of distortion rather
than education. The latest news has especially distorted the nation's
view of government ethics: the argument that defending against
frivolous ethics complaints was too costly in dollars and time, and
therefore damaging to the state and the people of Alaska, so damaging
that the governor resigned her position.<br>

According to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=2009…; target="”_blank”">an
Associated Press article yesterday</a>, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission
recommended a rule change that would get rid of the gag rule on people
who file ethics complaints. The cause of the rule change is two suits
filed against the EC, challenging the gag rule. The suits were filed on

"Investigators, like prosecutors, must understand that the desire to go
after big game to garner big headlines may be as unethical as the
offenses they are pursuing."<br>
<br>
This is the central point of a<a href="http://www.nyintegrity.org/pubs/other/Chairman%20Michael%20G%20%20Cherk…; target="”_blank”">

It seriously undermines the public's understanding of government ethics
when highly visible decisions misrepresent basic government ethics
concepts. This occurred yesterday, when the Alaska State Personnel
Board found that Governor Sarah Palin did not violate the <a href="http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/ethics/Statutes-AlaskaExecutiveBranchEth…; target="”_blank”">Alaska

In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/756&quot; target="”_blank”">a  recent blog
post</a>, I wrote about the fining of the executive director of
Philadelphia's board of ethics for violating confidentiality rules.
That blog post focused on dealing responsibly with a possible violation of an ethics code provision (although not actually an ethics provision, but instead a disciplinary rule). Now I would like to focus on confidentiality rules and

Yesterday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held oral arguments on the
appeal of the RI legislative immunity decision. I want to focus on two
important issues that arose in the oral arguments, according to <a href="http://www.projo.com/news/content/SUPREME_COURT_ETHICS_05-14-09_BLEC7F3…; target="”_blank”">an

Local government officials often defend halfway ethics reforms by
saying that they're just the beginning, and that something is better
than nothing. But halfway reforms are often effectively little more
than nothing, especially in the area of enforcement. "Window dressing"
is one term for such reforms. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_tiger&quot; target="”_blank”">Paper tiger</a>" is
another.<br>
<br>

It's amazing how quickly a legislature can move when a bill is so
embarrassing, the state's major newspaper calls it "Great for unethical
public
officials. Lousy for taxpayers." How quickly? Same day service.<br>
<br>
This just happened in Alabama, according to <a href="http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/03/alabama_senate_panel_rewrites.html&…; target="”_blank”">an