Some decisions are fundamental

APS Policy Committee Chair
David Peercy says that he wants
to review all APS Policies at once.

On its face, the intention and logic
seem sound. A change in one policy
could have both intended and
unintended effects on other policies.
It seems prudent to examine them
together.


But what if a particular policy change would clearly have an effect on all other policies; what if the change was fundamental? Wouldn't it make sense to iron out that policy statement first? There is a reason that buildings begin with their foundation.

The fundamental change that Peercy is trying to avoid discussing is the standards of conduct that apply not only to the enforcement of other policies, but to the formulation and review of those policies.

When Peercy reviews all other policies, will the review be
a review from a perspective that requires the least from all
other policies; the law, or will it be a review from a perspective
that requires the most from all other policies, ethics.

According to Character Counts! founding
father, Michael Josephson, adherence to
a higher standard than the law;
a code of ethics for example; often requires
more than the law requires,
and less than the law allows.


How can Peercy evaluate policy statements without first
establishing the basic, fundamental, standards against which
policy statements will be evaluated?

What makes Peercy's position so indefensible, is that the
discussion he is trying to avoid, is the one where the leadership
of the APS actually declares the standards against which
policies will be evaluated and under which they will be enforced.

The discussion that he is trying to avoid, is the one where the
leadership of the APS finally admits the truth, that they have
no intention whatsoever of being accountable to any standard
of conduct higher that the lowest standard of conduct that they
can find.




Peercy photo Mark Bralley
Josephson photo from his website