In the midst of the media frenzy around ex-legislator Ted Klaudt's conviction, and with the lawsuit against District 8 State Senator Dan Sutton pending, you can expect to hear more talk about a formal code of ethics for the South Dakota Legislature. Third-term Republican District 25 State Representative Tim Rave of Baltic questions the necessity of such a written code:
Rave expects lawmakers to pass some form of code next year. Although* he questions the need for one. "My personal opinion, I don't know that it necessarily is needed. I think what's going to be in there will just tell you the way you should believe already" [Perry Groten, "Lawmaker Questions Need for Code of Conduct," KELOLand.com, 2007.11.07 -- *and Perry, watch those fragment sentences!].
Few legislators are likely to vote against a code of ethics -- such a vote would give opponents too easy a sound bite and require more explaining than a one-minute debate or crackerbarrel response might allow. The safest response from a legislator to a bill creating a code of ethics might be, "Fine, great, whatever, move the previous question," so debate can progress to more pressing practical issues like education, health care, tax reform, etc.
But there might be a small-government argument against such a vote. If a law won't either do some good or prevent some bad, if it doesn't have practical results, why clutter the books with it? Rave might be moving toward this position:
Rave doubts that Ted Klaudt would have acted any differently had a code of conduct been in place while he was in the legislature. "I don't see how they would just all of a sudden go, oh yeah, I shouldn't do that just because you sign a piece of paper."
Rave says at best, a code of conduct will serve as a reminder to all lawmakers about proper behavior, even though Rave says it's unlikely any lawmaker needs a refresher on ethics. [Groten]
A reminder -- pretty thin reason to write a new law. A piece of paper doesn't tell legislators or anyone else how to act; at best (and this isn't much "best"), it just tells others what the legislators (or teachers, chiropractors, realtors...*) can be sued or censured for.
Real reliable ethics should flow from the good sense you absorb from growing up in a good family and community, and having a clear sense of your proper place among your friends and neighbors. No law makes morality happen; it generally just cleans up the mess left when parents, schools, churches, and communities haven't instilled that good sense. When a law won't do any good, we shouldn't waste our time with it.
*Codes of ethics are all the rage among organizations of every type. Google "code of ethics" this morning and you get 1,880,000 results.
It's a sad sign of the direction our society is going when legislators or lawmakers have to put into place policies or procedures on how people should act.
ReplyDeleteIn a way it boils down to having respect for one another and you can't draft a policy to force people to have respect and common courtesy for each other -- that has to be something that you are taught or learn.
What Ted Klaudt did was not only unethical, immoral and sickening, it was illegal and he was convicted of his crimes. No Ethics Creed would have slowed him and his predatorial behavior. Dan Sutton, on the other hand was not found guilty of anything other than perhaps poor judgement. Nothing was proven other than the big $750,000 question of retribution. He wasn't ever charged with a crime and the lawsuit against him is simply a civil case, not criminal. An ethics policy is not a bad idea, but it won't change the future acts of immoral officials.
ReplyDeleteBut if anything, it will force these individuals to be accountable for their actions!
ReplyDeleteI agree that a code of ethics is completely unnecessary and ridiculous for grown up, supposedly responsible adults in a state legislature. By that time if they don't know how to act ethically, a written code of ethics isn't going to change their behavior. It will be a complete waste of time, and I say "will" because I expect quite a few of them to seize the opportunity to pounce on this issue, irregardless of its efficacy or lack thereof.
ReplyDelete