Friday, April 06, 2007

mario burgos on "the line"

mr burgos was on the panel tonight.

I believe that I heard him say, the courthouse scandal, or one like it, would not have been prevented had the legislature passed the recommendations of the ethics taskforce.

the issue that I take with his argument, is whether or not the legislation is rightly referred to as "ethics reform".

it is not. I challenge any one to defend the use of the phrase, ethics reform, outside of a framework of accountability; the bedrock fundamental ethical reform. the package that the legislature did not pass, is no more ethics reform than a single step east is a walk around the world.

before you start laying bricks, you must attend to the foundation.
public servants at the highest levels cannot be held accountable for their conduct or their competence. restating the rules that they are breaking; and instating rules that they will break with impunity; does not constitute ethical reform.

if there were meaningful ethics reform in state government; it would include transparent accountability. meaningful ethical reform includes transparent accountability to a meaningful standard of conduct. any ethics reform that doesn't include accountability; cannot be rightly called ethics reform.

transparent accountability to an unequivocal standard of conduct,

  • by a system over which you have no control;
  • and even against your will.
it is the only proof that you will actually walk your talk.
there is no equivalent gesture.

accountability cannot be claimed; it must be demonstrated.
the only such demonstration being; honest accountability
for your conduct and competence by a system that is beyond
your influence, and even against your will.

and then you set it motion.

there is no equivalent gesture.

the terms of public service are the sole prerogative of the public. since when does the servant tell the master what are the rules of their inservitude?

what if every building construction had as an inviolate component, a forensic audit?

rather than responding to the fecklessness of the last package; I would rather that burgos, and some of the other heavy hitters; take it upon themselves to involve the community in creating an agenda for the special session for ethics.

they must because the journal and trib will not.

the question requires a simple yes or no; will you hold yourself honestly accountable to meaningful standard of conduct, as a public servant and within your public service, for "eight hours" a day?

any answer except yes no.

stonewalling is not answer, it is only a coward's m.o.

what if there were an annual aps adminstrative accountability audit?

by order of the leadership of the aps; students are taught that their character counts; and that their character counts on their honesty.
"sincerity is genuineness, being without trickery or duplicity. It precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and stonewalling, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading."
"intent is the crucial distinction between truthfulness and truth itself."
the intent of the leadership of the aps is to deceive stakeholders.
and to dodge accountability to any meaningful standard of conduct.

No comments: