According to the dictionary, ethics reform is an issue if it meets certain criteria. Among those criteria, ethics reform would have to be; in a state of controversy, in disagreement, under discussion or in dispute, a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties, a vital or unsettled matter. It would seem that ethics reform is an issue.
Why then, doesn’t it feel like an election issue? It doesn’t feel like an issue because there is no debate. One would assume that if there were disagreement over a vital issue there would be debate. Yet there isn’t.
Why not?
Let’s look at the sides in the debate. We can safely assume that a majority of voters support ethics reform in public service. We can also safely assume that a majority of public servants oppose ethics reform. What?
Ipso facto; “by the fact itself”.
If public servants supported ethical reform, accountability to a higher standard; they would have provided for it long since. That they have not provided for it is proof that they do not support it. It is not a new idea; it has been considered and rejected.
OK, so we have two sides, and still no debate. Why not? It is fair to say that those who support ethical reform would eagerly debate it. But it takes two to tango. Those who oppose ethical reform will not debate; they cannot debate. The lack of ethical reform serves no purpose but the selfish and special interests of those who oppose it. Their position is categorically indefensible. Were they to argue against ethical reform, it would be at the forfeit of their political careers. So they choose simply; no debate.
How can they simply choose not to debate? First, it is a prerogative of power that one does not have to answer inconvenient questions. The more powerful you are; the more important question you can ignore. The combined weight of all public servants, who oppose honest accountability to a higher standard of conduct, is more than enough weight to suppress a relative handful of upset voters.
There is only one mechanism that is capable of consistently uniting the powerless; the media.
Yet the media is conspicuously absent. Sure they cover the salacious scandals; they advocate change, and they disingenuously urge voters to (somehow) demand ethical reform. But they don’t and won’t insist that those who oppose ethical reform defend their position.
The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education and senior Administrator have decided that they will not be held accountable to a higher standard of conduct. They made the decision without public input or debate. They refuse to explain or defend it. They refuse even to admit that they have made it. The decision is relevant to the election of board members and referendums on tax issues. The issue is relevant, it is germane, it is a case on point, and it has not been reported by the media.
Is it as simple as the fact that the Board President, Paula Maes is the President of the New Mexico Broadcasters Association? Can one person cast that large a shadow? The Journal and Tribune offer no alternative explanation.
Ethical reform in public service should be an issue in upcoming elections. It will not be because the media have decided that it will not be. And because it is not an issue, there will be cosmetic change at best. Nothing will change.
Ched MacQuigg
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Is ethical reform really an issue in upcoming elections?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with much of what you say, but one thing to consider is that the Media, capital M, are also subject to lawsuits. They have to pick their battles, line up with people who seem credible, and not make the Fat Cats too mad, because, yes, publishers might be fellow Fat Cats, and it just sucks to get sued. So they play a game of selling papers or getting viewers, whathaveyou, and TRY to help us at the same time.
The messed up thing is that it HAS to be this way, any time you get the media on the government payroll, it will be a disaster. You get propaganda, not useful News.
So blogs and the internet and pulp-papers and broadcasts have to be a BUSINESS. They can be ever more ethical as advertisers and owners become freer from government tethers, from being part of someone else's game instead of those that should be watching the watchmen.
Even Magazines can slant things, not cover topics owners or governments find "unsuitable" or "unpatriotic" or "insert embarassing but necessary injustice here".
So I advise, Diogones, to be more focused, less vindictive, and focus on the facts and research your suspicions with supporting statutes, written rules, and case-law. Be the multi-faceted person that can help lead a School District, be incisive but moral. Don't sink to the level of those you are railing against. Care more about other topics, not just the "Injustice and Corruption in Government" theme that you have developed so far.
We all have our pet projects, have been on the short end of the kharmic stick, but we must not develop tunnel vision. I have been much too focused on seeking my narrow vision of Justice for three years, while recovering from an attack at a Charter School. I was unfairly treated, fired, arrested, made to feel like a criminal for standing up for my rights. And it could have been WORSE. I could have stood up to injustice in Iraq and been killed for my trouble. I could have been hurt much worse than I was, I was almost run over but NOT run over, I was kicked in the head but not shot... and it could have been much better too, had the police and school guards decided to help me when I called and gave them the information of who had almost run me over, BEFORE he came back with friends to jump me. So yes, I have unresolved issues, but at some point you have to know you have done all you can within your means. A battle must end, so you can get on with the LIVING that you fought for in the FIRST place.
Anyways, thanks for putting your thoughts in the blog for all to see, I hope that you pick your battles wisely, and WIN them!
Post a Comment