In coming weeks in cities and towns across Massachusetts, thousands of paid or volunteer public workers, elected and appointed officials will be studying for a new test, the implementation of the state's updated code of ethics law.

Recent corruption scandals involving state officials, such as former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson and former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, brought a cry from the public for state officials to clean up their act. But some in local government also believe the new amendments to the code may amount to overkill as it relates to local officials, employees and volunteers, another example of a state burden passed down to communities.

In the amendment to the state's Conflict of Interest Law (MGL 268A), legislators, under the urging of Gov. Deval Patrick, tightened up the rules involving campaign, finance, ethics and lobbying regulations, Salisbury Town Manager Neil Harrington said. Where once the fines and penalties for violating the regulations were minor, the new regulations carry high fines and stiff jail sentences, he said.

Terms are better defined and regulations spelled out so that there's little wiggle room for officials who take money or campaign contributions for performing political favors.

"Some fines are now as high as $50,000 with up to five years in jail per violation," Harrington said.

Harrington referred to penalties for public officials receiving, or any person offering, any gift or gratuity of substantial value for an official act. The new amendments raise some conflict of interest civil penalties for municipal officials from $2,000 to as high as $10,000, as well.

Harrington said the Wilkerson scandal of October 2008 might have started the ball rolling, but the state's Conflict of Interest Law hadn't been altered in years, prompting questions as to its effectiveness in deterring bad behavior among state politicians.

Wilkerson was arrested by FBI officials in late October 2008, charged with taking more than $23,000 in bribes. She resigned her Senate seat in November as a result. And DiMasi, indicted on federal corruption charges after he resigned, is the third House Speaker in a row to face charges of illegal behavior.

Few have problems with the intent to keep public officials honest. But the State Ethics Commission's recent implementation guidelines force cities and towns to take the front line position of ensuring everyone knows the new rules.

And the guidelines include everyone, all municipal employees and officials, full and part time, paid or unpaid, elected or appointed. Volunteer as a member of the conservation commission, sit on the local Council on Aging or town historic society, do janitorial work a few hours a week at town hall, and you're expected to comply with the Ethic Commission's "Mandatory Education and Training Requirements."

In Amesbury, for example, the number of ethics trainees could be as high as 190 people, said Kendra Amaral, the mayor's chief of staff.

"We're working on how best to roll this out," Amaral said. "But we're more focused on trying to find ways to save money and provide town services. This might fall behind those priorities. It's my understanding that we have to provide this information to everyone, but that we don't have to track (their completion of the process).

By April 2, 2010, and every two years after that, all municipal employees must complete the training program available on the Ethic Commission's Web site. Those hired after the April 2 deadline have 30 days to get certified and then every two years after that. Certificates of training completion must be filed with the town and city clerks and kept for six years.

Harrington is taking the lead in Salisbury. In Georgetown, it's the town clerk, said interim Town Administrator Mike Farrell. Paid employees have already received notice in their paychecks; other officials got notice via e-mail, Farrell said.

Farrell said the training program on the State Ethics Commission's Web site isn't hard, amounting to 25 multiple-choice questions that can be completed without much strain. But the burden on the towns to fulfill "another unfunded mandate," is a nuisance, he said, adding that so far there doesn't seem to be any "ethics police" prepared to descend on communities to punish noncompliance.

"I can't speak to what the Legislature had in mind when they passed this, but it's a hassle for towns to comply." Farrell said. "We're doing our best, but I think this is a big overreaction. To have Council on Aging volunteers sit down and take this test appears to be overkill to me. They painted this with too broad a brush."