Photo by Mr. T in DC

When a D.C. Council committee gathers tomorrow to consider comprehensive ethics legislation, it will do so in the midst of continued disagreements as to how far the proposal goes in addressing ethics violations that have marred the District’s government this year.

The legislation introduced by Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), which would create a new office to police ethics and tighten up many reporting requirements, received a bump today when it was commended by the Post’s editorial board, which called it a “serious effort in the right direction”:

No one piece of legislation will be able to cure all the ethical issues that have plagued the District. But the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability Establishment and Ethics Reform Act of 2011 would create a mechanism with a chance of making a difference.

Bowser’s proposal also got the thumbs up from the Examiner’s Jonetta Rose Barras, who argued that if anything, it was a good place to start.

There likely will be other suggestions for changes. But, the council should resist the urge to muck with the bill — unless there’s irrefutable evidence such action will make it stronger, ensuring residents won’t witness, again, despicable behaviors like those perpetrated this year by their elected officials.

For other, though, the bill doesn’t go far enough to produce meaningful change.

David Grosso, an independent At-Large Council candidate, said in a statement today that Bowser’s bill misses the opportunity to scrap Constituent Services Funds altogether, prohibit outside employment for councilmembers and strengthen conflict-of-interest reporting requirements. One of Bowser’s 2012 challengers, Max Skolnik, has similarly pushed for Constituent Services Funds to be eliminated. Just last week, progressive group D.C. for Democracy found that in 2010, only 12 percent of the $48,000 spent by councilmembers from the funds actually went to pressing constituent needs.

Another doubt has been raised as to the credibility of the new three-member D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability. For D.C. Watch’s Gary Imhoff, the problem isn’t so much the idea of the board itself, but rather who appoints its members:

“How then can we trust the mayor and council to appoint people who will really hold them to high standards, when they have given every sign that they do not want to be held to high standards? How can the newly appointed members of such a board escape the taint and suspicion that will cling to them because of the circumstances of their appointment?”

Bowser has received words of support from many of her colleagues, though some amendments may be introduced before the proposal goes to the full Council for consideration. One member who remains skeptical, though, is Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), who told WAMU that he favors getting rid of Constituent Services Funds. He’s not a member of Bowser’s committee, though, so any such effort would have to come before the entire Council — many members of which have said they’d like to keep the funds.

Bowser has said that she wants to move the ethics legislation before the end of the year.