May 1993June-July 1993
August 1993| May 1993 |
Home
Newsletters
June-July 1993 | August 1993 |
ViewpointsJUNE 7, 1993
At the recent ethics conference sponsored by the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, Michael S. Josephson of the Josephson Institute of Ethics stated that where government is based on the consent of the governed, every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of government. He went on to say that trust is the product of perceptions and beliefs, and not necessarily objective reality -- and that government officials have the obligation to safeguard public trust. This means that they have to avoid actions that give the perception of misbehavior or corruption even when the actions are honest and well intended. Now these are powerful beliefs. Every citizen is entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of his government. That government officials have the obligation to safeguard public trust. It means that we citizens have the right to demand that the individual and collective actions of government not only adhere to strict rules of integrity but avoid raising the perception of expressing their expectations of correct behavior. Both the governed and the governing share the responsibility of seeing that government really functions for the good of all. It is only when government has the trust of its citizens that it can function boldly and creatively to solve the many problems society faces today. JUNE 14, 1993 In a previous viewpoint, we discussed the responsibility of government officials to avoid raising perceptions of misuse of office in order to build citizens' trust in their government. Sometimes, however, certain actions of government officials may give the perception of misuse of office when the official is really acting on the basis of merits of the case. Should that official alter his actions to avoid the misperception? We say no. But the official does owe it to the public to explain the reasons for his actions. For example, a recent Charter amendment allows Honolulu council members to abstain from voting on issues on which they face personal conflicts of interest. League urged the council to adopt the requirement of oral disclosures of conflict on the council floor before action is taken. Council made this a part of its rules. Now, Council members who face conflict on certain issues can explain why they choose to abstain or choose to vote on those issues. Just because a council member stands to gain financially if a certain ordinance is passed does not necessarily mean that he has to vote against it. He can abstain from voting. Or he can vote for the passage of that ordinance if its merits warrant it. But he does have the obligation to justify his vote before he votes. The explanations of actions that might raise questions need to be honest, not mere rationalization. The officials need to do some soul searching and the listeners need to be alert and objective in their judgments. JUNE 21, 1993 Listening to the investigation into state procurement practices, one thing becomes very clear. Strong moral leadership is required to keep the total process not only legally correct, but morally correct as well. It is too easy to skirt the law for the sake of expediency. Even if the intent is honest, the flawed process becomes quote, acceptable and traditional, which then opens the door to abuse. And even if in the mind of the involved official, no wrongdoing is intended, the public can never be sure. It is the obligation and the responsibility of public officials not to give rise to the perception of misconduct. Strict guidelines should be adopted and enforced in the state procurement process. Budget Department Director Yukio Takemoto's explanation that written guidelines are unnecessary because his staff members are professionals who know what they are doing is unacceptable. In the extremely rare case when adherence to the guidelines is absolutely not possible, the public is entitled to know at that moment, the circumstances and the reasons for the action taken. It is important that our leaders not only expect, but insist on ethical conduct in of government. are responsible the moral tone of and the public them accountable all aspects The leaders for setting government, should hold for that. JUNE 21, 1993 Once again the League of Women Voters is under attack for having lost its "objectivity" and "credibility" by taking firm stands on issues. This criticism shows ignorance of what the League of Women Voters is. We were founded nationally 72 years ago as part of the Women's suffrage movement. Should we have publish-ed the pros and cons of women's rights to vote then just let the citizens judge? No -- we lobbied, we demonstrated, we marched and we won. Being non-partisan is not the same as being indifferent. We do not support or oppose specific political candidates. We do strongly support or oppose political issues -- but first, we study them. Though non-partisan as to political parties and candidates, the League is decidedly not impartial on issues. For example, in April 1990 we published a 23-page report entitled "Arguments For and Against a Rail Transit System entitled "Arguments For and Against Rail Transit For Honolulu." This was distributed to the press, to all neighborhood boards, to libraries, and to our members. Some months later our membership arrived at a consensus to oppose the City's then pending rail transit project. Since then we have done everything we could to defeat this ill-conceived proposal. In December 1992 the entire City Council thanked us for our "many hours of informative, educated and helpful testimony on a multitude of issues" and commended us for our "extraordinary efforts in the continued pursuit of providing our citizens with the resources necessary to attain democracy in our State and in the Nation." Evidently we still have some "objectivity" and "credibility," in spite of what our detractors charge.
|
| May 1993 | Home Newsletters | August 1993 |
