Directors of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) adopted several new ethics proposals. Among the proposals are rules to regulate fee payments to placement agents, who help funds gain access to CalPERS decision makers, and rules to ensure the same staff members who negotiate investment deals do not monitor their success.

Additionally, the directors approved a requirement for investment partners to hold meetings in modest office settings instead of vacation resorts. The directors postponed decisions on proposals to reduce or eliminate travel, gifts, and other accommodations outside investment firms provide board members, and to impose a two-year “revolving door” ban on certain CalPERS employees.

These regulations being put in place are in line with legislation taking effect earlier this year requiring placement agents to register as lobbyists and regulating how the agents are paid.

Photo of CalPERS headquarters by Coolcaesar on Wikipedia.

Jim Sedor, the editor of State and Federal Communications’ News You Can Use, offers this breaking news item. Jeff Cox, a deputy attorney general in Indiana, has been fired for commenting on his Twitter account that police in Wisconsin should use live ammunition to disperse protesters.

For the full story, here is the article by Chris Sikich and Mary Beth Schneider in the Indianapolis Star: “Indiana official fired for remarks on Twitter” from February 24.

Here is a statement from the Attorney General’s Office on Jeff Cox’s online postings and his being fired.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy has proposed reducing the number of budgeted state agencies from 87 to 57 in a move intended to increase efficiency and save the state money. Included in the reduction plan is a proposal to combine the Office of State Ethics, Elections Enforcement Commission, Contracting Standards Board, Freedom of Information Commission, and Judicial Review Council into a new agency to be named the Office of Governmental Accountability.

While not detailing how these agencies would be capable of functioning as one, or where any cost savings would be seen, Malloy did question in a press release why all these agencies are presently separate, stating “…why are all of the government accountability functions…separate entities when so many of their issue areas and jurisdiction overlap? It just didn’t make sense.”

Quickly voicing their concern against this proposal was the non-profit group Common Cause, noting how each of these “watchdog” agencies presently must keep watch over the other. A statement released by Common Cause noted “If a citizen files a complaint that the Elections Enforcement Commission or the Office of State Ethics has violated the FOI Act, the watchdog agency would be both the respondent and judge. It is unlikely that the new commission would bring ethics charges against itself, and this watchdog agency would undermine the public’s confidence and become a national joke.”

Photo of the state capitol by Ragesoss on Wikipedia.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) has chosen Paul Dauphinais as its new executive director. Mr. Dauphinais has served as the president of Garrett College in Maryland, the director for the University of Alaska in Palmer and the executive director for the Homer Chamber of Commerce. He also has a PhD in History and an MS in Information Systems and is a retired commander of the U.S. Navy.

Mr. Dauphinais starts February 22, replacing Holly Hill who held the position since 2008.

You can read the full press release here.

Map of Alaska by Skew-t on Wikipedia.

Transparency International (TI) has this motto: Corruption hurts everyone. Based in Berlin, Germany, TI is a  non-governmental and non-partisan organization with a coalition of more than 90 local chapters throughout the world.

Founded in 1993, Transparency International monitors and reports on international political and corporate corruption. They look at how corruption affects political parties and the election process, lobbying, international trade, defense issues, and government procurement. TI’s work has directed the world’s attention to the problem of corruption and how it affects people, especially the poor. Among its accomplishments, the organization has played a big role in establishing the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

From TI’s website you can learn many things about the organization and global corruption. My favorite feature is the 2010 Corruption Perception Index. It has an interactive map reporting the perception of government and corporate corruption for people in most nations of the world. Looking at their scale from zero (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean), I held my breath before I saw the score for the United States. I was happy to find out we earned a 7.1 – pretty clean. I was disturbed to see how many places all over the world fell into the corrupt categories.

In addition to giving us a terrific web design, the people at Transparency International are savvy with social media. TI has put a great deal of engaging information on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and their blog. You can even find a podcast and a free iPhone app.

For anyone who cares about the worldwide issues of good government, Transparency International deserves your close attention.

As reported in today’s pressofatlanticcity.com, the Atlantic City City Council unanimously passed a pay-to-play ordinance mandated by an agreement with the state’s Department of Community Affairs. The law would prohibit granting contracts to individuals and businesses who contributed to a campaign or political action committee for the election of a council member.

The Department of Community Affairs gives financial assistance to local municipalities in exchange for measures such as instituting pay-to-play laws and giving the Department power to review and approve other city business, such as hiring and promoting. The only discussion about the ordinance was from Councilman Moisse Delgado, who asked, “Y’all ready for this?”

The state Ethics Commission has released its final promulgated amendments to the state’s ethics rules for 2011.

These amendments, available on the commission’s website, become law on July 1 if no action is taken by the state legislature.

One of the rules set forth this year will allow corporations to make independent expenditures and another will allow PACs to contribute to ballot measure committees.

Image of the Oklahoma flag by Denelson83 on Wikipedia.

Senator James Arnold has introduced a bill which would require persons seeking business relationships with local jurisdictions and their agencies to register and report activity and expenditures as lobbyists, whether or not the local jurisdictions have ordinances dealing with lobbying. Senate Bill 0330 defines ‘business relationship’ to include pecuniary interest contracts and purchases with an agency with an aggregate value of at least $100,000.

The bill calls for the reporting to be filed with the local county clerks where the lobbying activity occurs. A $100 a day late fine would be imposed for each day a lobbyist misses his or her filing date and lobbyists knowingly failing to register or file would face a Class A infraction.

The bill also allows local jurisdictions to adopt ethics ordinances and establish ethics commissions.

Map of Indiana by Jim Irwin on Wikipedia.

The special session, called by Governor Riley in late December, lasted seven days and saw the passage of several landmark bills, each of which was promptly signed into law.

The most dramatic change concerning lobbyists is the newly enacted expenditure limits.  Previously, lobbyists could spend anything on an official without having to report it until the spending exceeded $250 per day.  Now, lobbyists may only spend $25 on an official for a meal with an annual limit of $150.  For a lobbyist’s employer, the limit is $50 per meal with a $250 annual cap.  This law has been criticized by some as having too many loopholes.  For instance, the limit does not apply to an “educational function” or certain “widely attended” events.  Disclosure of spending at these events is still required when spending exceeds $250 per official.

Lawmakers also passed a ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds.  This, lawmakers hope, will reduce the “shell game” sometimes played which makes it very difficult for the public to track who is actually funding candidates or making expenditures.

Several of the laws passed impacted the actions of state officials directly.  Starting in 2014, a state lawmaker will no longer be allowed to hold another government job.  Additionally, the reforms include a ban on “pass through pork.”  This is a practice whereby state lawmakers could direct an agency to spend money a certain way without legislative approval.  Finally, the Alabama Ethics Commission will be granted subpoena power; this is expected to make enforcement of the laws much easier and effective.

The most controversial bill passed during the session is one banning politically active groups from receiving contributions via payroll deduction from state employees.  This law was decried as an attack on the American Education Association, a group usually linked to Democratic candidates.  Governor Riley, a Republican, defended the bill as a step to prevent misuse of state time and money.

While most agree the reform package is not perfect or all-inclusive, most within the state’s ethics and political circles agree they are a significant step forward at a time when Alabama badly needs one.

Photo of the Alabama Statehouse by Spyder_Monkey on Wikipedia.

The bill would affect an individual who submits a competitive bid or proposal for a contract as an individual, partner or owner of a privately held business, or board member or executive officer of a business.

They would be prohibited from making a political contribution to a candidate for statewide office, a statewide officeholder, or a specific-purpose committee for supporting or opposing a candidate for statewide office or assisting a statewide officeholder, during the period beginning with the date the bid or proposal is submitted and ending when the contract is awarded to another person or the 30th day after the bidder is awarded the contract.

Further, the same restrictions would be applied to a general-purpose committee established or administered by a corporation. If passed in current form, the legislation would take effect September 1, 2011.

Companion bills seeking to create “revolving door” restrictions for members of the Texas legislature have been introduced during the 2011 session. Senate Bill 128 and House Bill 508 seek to prevent former members of the legislature from lobbying “before the date of final adjournment of the second regular session of the legislature to convene after the date the person ceases to be a member.”

If passed as presently written, a violation would be considered a class A misdemeanor in Texas.

Image of the Texas flag and state courtesy of Shem on Wikipedia.

A proposed ethics law would create a “revolving door” restriction for former West Virginia elected officials and senior members of their staff.

Under House Bill 2464, these people would have to wait one year after leaving office before acting as a lobbyist at the state level. A more controversial aspect of this bill would require public officials to disclose their spouse’s source of income in campaign disclosure filings.

A similar bill was proposed last year but stalled in the Senate Finance Committee.

Photo of the West Virginia state capitol building by Analogue Kid on Wikipedia.

The Houston City Council is expected to consider a new ethics ordinance this week wherein attorneys would no longer be able to lobby city officials under the guise of performing legal work. The ordinance would require all persons lobbying to register as lobbyists or face criminal penalties.

Further, changes would also be made prohibiting city officials from accepting or soliciting gifts from parties seeking to do business with the city.

Photo of Houston City Hall by Daniel2986 on Wikipedia.

Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker is proposing the General Assembly pass an ethics law prohibiting local council members from reviewing land use cases where there has been no appeal. Currently, when a planning board has decided an outcome, and there is no appeal by either the developer or the resident, the council can still choose to ‘call’ up the case. Baker wants to prevent this procedure because the purpose may be to seek concessions from developers.

Baker is also proposing they pass legislation similar to what has already been proposed by Delegate Justin Ross, requiring local officials to recuse themselves from voting on building projects if a developer contributed to a shared campaign account affiliated with the official. Presently, local leaders may vote on land use projects while indirectly receiving political contribution from these developers through accounts shared with General Assembly candidates.