Anyone who knows me is aware that my number one gripe about process concerns conflicts of interest. They proliferate unchecked at all levels of officialdom, largely because there are insufficient definitions and next to no penalties for violators.

I therefore attach great signifcance to the efforts by Sen. Bernie Sanders and his Democratic co-sponsors (California Senator Barbara Boxer and Mark Begich of Alaska) to pass a law prohibiting industry executives from being directors of any of the twelve Federal Reserve banks.

A Government Accountability Office audit – conducted pursuant to a Sanders provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law – found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve’s board of directors creates “an appearance of a conflict of interest” and poses “reputational risks” to the Federal Reserve System.

This might seem obvious to anyone who would think twice about hiring a real estate agent to inspect a house they were considering buying through that agent; but apparently the concept is difficult for many holders of public office to fully embrace.

“It is a blatant conflict of interest for Jamie Dimon, the CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, to serve on the New York Fed’s board of directors,” Sanders said. “If this is not a clear example of the fox guarding the henhouse, I don’t know what is.”

Let’s see this same push to eliminate conflicts of interest all over the place.