Ethics in Government

As this Arkansas legislative session has drawn to a close, there are some disappointments for those who did not see their particular issue make it out of the session but probably should have. Animal cruelty springs to mind, an issue that has brought some passionate pleas from those for whom this issue defines the very nature of human behavior. I happen to agree that malicious cruelty toward any animal for the sheer pleasure of getting one’s extremely perverse jollies is a peculiar behavior that should concern us all.

Some are not satisfied that the legislature fully answered the state Supreme Court’s mandate of “equitable” education when a recent article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported some Arkansas school districts as able to offer substantially higher teacher pay because they desire “the best”. I will believe “equitable” when I see “equitable” according to the state’s need to have “the best” working in a district where the need for a particular discipline is greatest and fully addressed not according to what the position pays but according to the students’ needs.

The one issue that should be fundamental to any endeavor, however, failed. It is a curious thing that mature adults cannot agree on what constitutes ethical behavior as it relates to accepting gifts from lobbyists. Lest one believe that “lobbyist” is a bad word with negative connotations, let us consider that lobbyists are paid consultants who speak on behalf of a group of voting citizens (that would be you and me) with a common interest. This is not the problem.

The problem exists when elected representatives believe that it is somehow ok to accept any gift of any value, including meals and coffee, from a person or persons who would not have given them the time of day prior to their election, thus giving the illusion of granting favors to the highest bidder or simply seeking special, personal privilege. Does it matter that the gift, however small, is “ethically” listed on a financial disclosure form for all to see? Is it not more ethical that there be no gifts listed as having been received? Legislators have been granted a rare privilege to speak and work on behalf of their constituents. There are certain privileges that come with the office; however, “freebies” don’t happen to be among those privileges. Why? Because these “freebies” do not benefit the state or a particular district as a whole.

This is not to suggest that all lobbying activity should be declared illegal or even unethical. You and I as individual citizens do have access to our elected representatives, limited though it may be. We cannot take time off from work to wander the halls of the state capital and visit with committee chairs or individual members so we hire someone to speak for us, to wander the halls of the state capital and meet with the committee chairs and other individual members whose influence can enhance our cause. This, as they say, is truly “how it is”. There is no ethical concern related to how well a lobbyist can present a case. It is a sales job with talented and knowledgeable persons who are able to help the legislator work through the intricacies of a particular issue and perhaps gain a broader perspective.

The boundaries of acceptable behavior are crossed, however, when a legislator gives the impression that the greater gift or the finer meal will somehow help make the case. Even if most lobbying efforts take place after normal business hours, it is still all in the course of doing that business which concerns the whole state and not just the individual doing the selling nor the individual being lobbied. Does a finer meal at a nicer restaurant somehow make the selling point of a particular issue more acceptable?

Ethical behavior demands a certain standard by which we are all governed on an equal plane. A committee chair is obviously going to be more influential and a member of a particular committee is going to be more sought after than a rank-and-file member of the legislature. It then becomes incumbent upon those who hold these favored positions to consider that they are not there because other members believe they are most entitled to special privileges. The opportunities are greater, of course, but the duty is the same. It is the state’s business as a whole that is being looked after. Bearing this in mind without seeking special status or privilege is completely ethical.

Since legislators cannot seem to agree on an amount acceptable to all, my proposal is ZERO. This is not arbitrary, and it is the right thing to do. And if there are legislators who are still unsure of what constitutes an ethically questionable gift, allow me to help you. If a lobbyist would not have given you a gift of any sort prior to your election and will likely not return your calls after you are termed out of office, you should probably refrain from accepting even a cup of coffee. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen; this will end the ethics debate once and for all when you come to realize that yours is not a position of personal privilege. Rather, it is a position of honor that requires a certain level of reverence especially toward those who have entrusted to you the privilege to speak in their behalf.