In the end, there is only one kind of accountability;
complete surrender, without reservation, to due process.
If there is a standard, and you are held accountable to that standard by an impartial system, powerful enough to hold you accountable even against your will, you are accountable to that standard.
If at any point, you can influence the process, or skirt the process all together, you cannot claim you are honestly accountable.
The redaction of public records is not done by due process.
Some may argue that the legal process represents due process;
it does not.
An honest Ethics Commission constitutes due process. And
that is precisely why politicians and public servants oppose one.
Surrendering to due process constitutes the burning of a bridge;
once you create it, there is no going back.
Even the politicians and public servants with the most character and courage, seem unwilling to take the step that will hold them honestly accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service, without reservation.
Apparently, they have not character and courage enough.
If there is any other explanation, now would be a good time
to lay in on the table for criticism.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Surrender to due process.
Posted by ched macquigg at 11:08 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment