Rules/ethics for public officials??

[Dinosaur]

It has always seemed to me that legislators, judges, police, et cetera should be held to higher standards that the rest of us, but this is not the way it is. In Pennsylvania, it is incredible what police and judges can do without losing their job.

How about congressman Janklow?

This congressman already has dozens of speeding tickets and citation for other traffic law violations, but has not lost his license. Congressman must face tuff rules.

Janklow is also charged with speeding, running a stop sign and reckless driving. If convicted of manslaughter, he could face up to 10 years in prison, as well as a House ethics committee investigation.

Under the committee's rules, any representative convicted of a crime that carries two or more years in prison should refrain from voting in the chamber until his or her record is cleared, or until re-elected.

Of course he collects his salary while in jail and will still be eligible for a pension which is about 75% or more of his current salary, generously adjusted for inflation.

Senators and congressmen exempt themselves from almost all labor legislation. they do not have to pay overtime or grant maternity leave, et cetera. I am not sure what other laws are not applicable to them.

 

[spookz]

i can relate to that. unfair as it may seem the initial premise is... familiarity allows for preferential treatment. perhaps a simple scenario. its immediacy will make it relevant

step into to the shoes of a cop on the beat. a crime is commited. you apprehend the perp. she is sally, your little girl. what do you do?

from this we extrapolate. family, extended family, village, city, nation, industry, blah. benefits are accrued thru membership

insular attitudes ala "us vs them" provides a fertile ground for corruption/perversion of justice

the question then is asked of the individual... "what will it take to compromise your ideal notion of justice and fairplay"? excuses will be offered

*then again, perhaps i project

 

[zanket]

I don’t see why Janklow’s pension should be affected by a conviction.

 

[Dinosaur]

Zanket: Perhaps a pension should not be affected by a conviction, but legislators typically get pensions that are 75% to 100% of their salaries. Furthermore, one term in office usually qualifies an individual for full pension rights. Do you know of any other job which provides such a generous pension? Social security benefits for the average person are trivial if you only work for a few years and never come close to even 40% of your salary not matter how long you work.

If you or I went to jail for two years or more, our salary would cease immediately or at best a few weeks after our last day at work. Our noble legislators can collect their salary until the end of their term even if they go to jail.

If I got 3 or 4 tickets for speeding or other traffic offenses, I would lose my license for at least a few months. Janklow still has his license after 10 or more speeding citations.

It is common knowledge that legislators, judges, police, et cetera are held to lower, not higher, standards than the average citizen. Police who are allowed to use a gun, judges allowed to make decisions restricting a citizen's liberty, legislators allowed to establish controls over our lives should be held to higher, not lower, standards of ethical conduct.

 

[spookz]

no
additional responsibilties does not imply they have to abide by a higher ethical standard. the implication is that joe blow is then allowed to get away with shit while a judge is not allowed to (for the same trangression)

perhaps a scenario where a cop has to be more honest than joe?

making a decision that affects millions ideally should not be any different from making one that affects an a single individual

the lower standards you refer to is a result of the fraternity within that particular org. it happens everywhere. hollywood/wallstreet/blah. like you mention, civil servants are notorious for their freebies.

what is particularly galling to me is when workers are cut/downgraded/paycuts while management gets raises. where is the frikkin morality in that!

but perhaps i miss the point

 

[zanket]

Dinosaur: His pension and salary, even if incarcerated, are among the terms of his employment. They are part of the incentive package the public offered to elicit good candidates for the job. So it’s fair.

Probably in all states you can get 10 or more speeding citations without losing your license, if you string them out over many years. I haven’t read anything to the contrary about Janklow.

I agree that legislators, judges, police, etc. should be held to a higher standard. I think in many ways they are, but there are also some big loopholes. My dad worked for the US federal government. His idea to close the loopholes was to pay a lot more in salary, so that legislators and judges etc. would get salaries on par with what they could command in the private sector. A senator might get over $1 million say, in exchange for agreeing to an extreme ethics contract that would include, among other things, a multi-year waiting period before switching to the private sector. I think if Bush had to wait 5 years after leaving office before he can collect his $250,000 an hour oil-industry speaking fees, we might not have gone to war with Iraq. Paying more would also attract more candidates who, though qualified, shun the public sector now.

 

[Bells]

People in a position of power, be they legislators, judges, police, should always conduct themselves in a manner that is of higher standard to the rest of society. Reason being that they either create, moderate or enforce the law upon the rest of society. Unfortunately reality has shown that people in these positions have the ability to escape punishment for any crimes they may have committed. Money talks, but position screams much louder.

 

[spookz]

double standards. what i note is..."appearance of impropriety". that is just mindless and fearful reasoning. i suspect pathology

 

[spookz]

its a damn witchhunt. i mean...a "conflict of interest" if i favor burger king over mcdonalds?

 

[spookz]

if it is not clear, perhaps a few examples will illustrate why "higher standards" ususally translates to superficial and bogus "appearances" and not to any actual moral standard

For example, a faculty member enamored of one of his better graduate students asks her out, but the young lady is already attached and says "No." She then earns a solid B+ on her research paper. Fearing charges of sexual harassment stemming from a clear appearance of impropriety, the professor assigns an A without hesitation. The very wrong to be avoided--an academic action taken on other than academic grounds has occurred, and, in addition, reluctance to further supervise the student's research is likely.

Likewise, a town commissioner responsible for the competitive award ofcontracts reviews all bids and finds his son-in-law's the most reasonable and worthy. Fearing charges of nepotism and bid-rigging stemming from a clear appearance of impropriety, the public official quickly awards the contract to someone less able. The very wrong to be avoided-noncompetitive
award of a contract--has occurred, and, in addition, normally irenic family relations have been disturbed.

the appearance (pdf)

i am aware it is complicated. in a litigious society such as ours, it would be the smartest course of action to cover your ass in every which way, but this "ass covering" tends to get rather ridiculous. it is not the easiest of things to divine actual intent, but an effort along with a dose of commonsense outta do the trick. if we cannot, lets build a zoo and cage ourselves. in there we should be safe from expressing these criminal impulses

 

[zanket]

Here’s a prime example of why people in some positions need to be held to a higher standard:

Key author of new bill on Medicare to resign

Thomas Scully, the Bush administration official deeply involved in writing the Medicare bill, said Wednesday that he would resign once President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

Scully said he probably would take a job at one of five law or investment firms that want him to advise clients affected by the sweeping legislation.

Methinks just maybe he had an incentive to make the bill as convoluted as possible.

 

[spookz]

bah
indeed he did. so did cheney/halliburton

i think the "higher standards" evoked a kneejerk reaction from me. perhaps it was because specific professions were singled out. there is basic code of conduct for civil servants. for instance....

All public officials, public employees, and former public employees and officials, must comply with conflict of interest restrictions.

Public officials/employees shall not:

• *use their office/staff to seek employment or conduct business.
  *use their position to obtain private gain or advantage for themselves, a relative, or an entity in which they have a present or potential financial interest.
  *disclose or use confidential information that is not generally available to the public for their own or another person's financial benefit.
  *participate in transactions that they may substantially influence if they know that a relative, friend, or associate has a substantial financial interest in them.
  *use public funds, time, or equipment for their own private gain, unless authorized by law.

and so on

obviously it is inadequate and like zanket mentioned, loopholes exist. i can also see how the higher up you go in the chain of command, the bigger the impact improprieties can have. in cheney's case, thousands of dead iraqis. a conflict of interest with regards to a judge might possibly have an innocent man codemned to death.

yes i see it now. appearances be damned. it is probably a neccessary evil. higher standards for the higher ups! trangressions will be punished by a gruesome death!