OCR Text |
Show Cit 1Zens A Philosophically Independent Journal ot Opinion Writtenby Uralh's ( WestEdition_ Salt Lake c Utah Legal ornot, politicians’ acts should be ethical For anypersonin a public office, whether appointed Give Deedee a break heart,” Public servants ‘‘from the given without expectation of anything in return. Normative gifts are expectedgifts that pre- money should be vent hurt feelings. Strategic gifts are given for strategic reasons. considered unethical, and andthey usually establish indebt- edness. Ulterior-motivated gifts removalfrom office should be thepunishment for those who do. areself-explanatory Our legislative bodies spend hoursstatutorily defining ethical standards for elected and ap- pointed public employees. This By Robert Warnick Salt Lake City makesthe ethical question more complex than necessary, and laws merely result in legislative and judicial expenseto the public. Instead of passing more laws. For the past nine years I have taught a class at University of Phoenix dealing with critical issues facing today’s managers. Through analysis of a series of in- perhaps a “Code of Ethical Con- duct” cidents, the students discuss how they would handle decisions could endorse and enforce. Most members of professional and business organizations live by such codes. Discipline is handled internally by peers, and the unethical are weededout ed when his attorney establishes that his boss and the directorof the HighwayPatrol have also ac- In a “Code of Ethical Conduct for public employees the first principle must be, “I will accept cepted gifts. no compensation or any kind of Two similar scenarios have gift not specifically authorized by been revealed in Salt Lake City the group for which I work.” Ac- during the past fewweeks. In both instances a public employee ia a decision-making position has accepted moneyas a personal gift or ‘consulting fee.’ Each week there are questions raised, locally and nationally, about honesty and alleged violations of law by our elected officials and other public employees. The three men hold ing the highest offices in the Unit- ed States are all accused of ques- tionable conduct dealing with money and honesty We tend toreact to these inci- dents byasking if a law has been broken. Whydoweoverlook the “Is it ethi- cal?” The assumption appears to be “if it’s legal, it’s ethical.” Remember, ethical and legal que tions are not synonymous. Ma! actions determined legal by the courts are considered unethical should be written by and for public employees, a code they which have no companypolicyor precedent One scenario deals with a public employee suspendedfollowing acceptanceof gifts. He is reinstat- more basic question, normative, strategic andulteriormotivated. Expressive gifts are spontaneous and or elected, accepting expensive gifts and ceptance of gifts would violate this principleand those whodo so must allow another member of the group to take their place as by much ofsociety While studying history, I learned we have governments — and elected and appointed public employees — because the founders ofour nation saw some needs that were better handled collectively. These efforts resulted in membersof the group being selected to carry out the group's plan. (Examples: Military protection, infrastructure construction and maintenance, law enforce- ment.) The citizens agreed that personsselected to work for the group would receive astipendfor their efforts, and group members would p: tax to provide money for the service. This simplistic viewof government reminds us of maintain group cohesiveness, every act of the public employee must be abovesuspicion. If it appears some group members are receiving services other than Wednesday, February 19, 1997 shouldn't be subjected to intrusive probes of their private lives that interfere with their ability to serve. By John Rush Murray Is polities war? You be thejudge. Weelectofficials to representourinterests in concert with and balanced against the needs of the broader community. They must be allowed to do our work but, increasingly, they also end up fighting to defend their political actions protect their personal interests, maintain their reputa tion and save their soul in the process! Oftentimes their very existence is at stake. Is this good, necessary or right? Doesthis intense level of public scrutiny serve to keep our elected officials more honest than would otherwise be the case. oris groupservice provider In the classes previously men- it destructive. mean-spirited and hateful? Really, does it serve any productive pur- tioned, the question of taking pose or add value to the stricter code thanthosein private gifts alwaysturns to whether public employees should live by a business, Every group of students discussing this question concludes, “public officials should live by a higher law.” They agree business of governing and the service delivered to the taxpaying public? In truth it is ultimately damaging to the democratic process and the individual, and it under. whywehaveelected andappointed public employees The question then is, “Why divisiveness puts the group in that even the appearance of im. jeopardyof being destroyed. (Po- propriety should be avoided in mines the workings of the government. Thevoterswill ultimately would any member of this group litical contributions are a sepa- public students decide the answer to ques. agree that concern about the ac- tions of our public employees whether what Mayor Deedee Corradini did (in accepting gifts of money from want to pay more than required for the service rendered?” The assumption made is that they are receiving someconcealedservice Whether they are or not is irre!a vant — it appears they a those for which the groupexists, rate issue, not discvssed here) Kathleen Reardon's book Gift Giving Aroundthe World isadis. cussion of cultural differences in gift-giving. Reardon identifies office. Further, should focus on unethical acts. The standardof right and wrong should be high when dealing with four major gift types: Expressive tions like these. Now See DEEDEE on Page2 See ETHICAL on Page 2 Punishmentshouldfit the crime — don’t revoke rights for misdemeanors In somesituations,it does more harm than good to take the of abill recently that makes it afelony for a person convictedofa crime of domestic right ofgun ownership away from a person who has been convicted of the crime of Onthesurface, this seems like a reasonable approach for protecting those who domestic violence, espcially when other criminals can still access gunslegally. Sandy American criminal justice system has always been that a punishment should fit the crime which brought it about. Our founding fathers werethe first to espouse this theory with theratificationofthe Bill of Rights In this grand document are the fifth amendment, whichprohibits thetaking of life, liberty or property without due pro: cess. and the eighth amendment, which states that bails, fines, and punishments children or finances. One they are arguing M filing for divorce. Jo! ly upset and in ar room lamp onto the floor. evening while is John she is comes extreme hrows a living shattering it Mary calls 9-1-1 and the police re spond. John admits to the officers that he did breakthe lamp and he’s issued a cita tion for criminal mischief /domestic vio lence. John goes to court and, represent ing himself, pleads guilty, He might be sentenced to striking attend anger management ablowfor justice, For too longtheslight est infraction against the Crownhadre. classes, pay restitution to Mary, pay court costs and fines and even be placed on pro sulted in the ery, “off with their heads! Today, there are once again those who bation to the court Now, however, with the passage of the peopl: hibited from ever owning firearm. It doe matte have committed only misde their motives aren't connected more with their desire to implement their plans for guncontrol I'm speaking about Congress’ passage Citizens. ship and they often argue about the mustnot beexcessive. With these amend of domestic violence, but some wonder if For more information, call Citizens at 237-2716, write “urs, fax us at 237-2519 or E-mail us at citizen the problem of domestic viole ments, the foundingfathers were meanor crimes. They do it under the guise of protecting the innocent victims - mie your commentary havefallenvictim to heinous crimes committed by one of their own family mem bers, A closer examination, however should show how grossly unfair the ney law is and howit fails te addres e crimes committed with firearms. Let's start by taking a lookat two hypo. thetical cases. John and Mary are hus band and wife. Theirs is a rocky relation By Clayton D. Dumas Abasictenet of the violenceto ever again possess a firearm federal law in question John is also pro possessin John has no previous criminal record or if he is an otherwise lawful gun owner who has en joyed target shooting or hunting in the past. He might even be a police officer who must carry a firearm to perform his duties. He cannot own a gun Let's take a look at the second case Curtis — or ( his associates an extensive juvenile criminal record He's been involved in auto thefts. st arm robberies, assaults and variou andalcohol offenses. At 19, ( g leader of a small gang. One and his assc night C-I ve ae onarival gangbys| \ police investigation re: Dog's arrest. The county att whatever reason, choosesto fi of discharging a firearm from h and criminal mischief, both misdeme ors. C-Dog uses a cc »pointed |, and ajury trial finds less of his past crimi conviction, on: The gross inequities in justice ed ia these two hypothetical just the whimsic ca Dayafter day th in our criminal justice s thought-out andunjust federa into the problem of d it left standing This is not to say violence offenders warrant denying them However, the restrict those convi ted crimes of domestic € f violence aggravated assault, arson nious crimes, from possessin he gerous weapon, not just fire We can't solve the problem of d See FIREARMS on Page |