Ethical Obligations Do Not End at the Line Drawn By Jurisdictional Language
There are two morals to the following story. One involves law, the
other ethics.<br>
<br>
Last August, <a href="http://www.npri.org/publications/nevada-schools-billiondollar-blind-spo…; target="”_blank”">the
Nevada Policy Research Institute ran a long commentary</a> on the fact
that Nevada's 17 school superintendents were not filing financial
disclosure statements with the state ethics commission, something
required of all the state's "public officers." Even though the superintendents met all
three of the definition's requirements, it turns out that the school
boards that appointed them were only authorized, not required to
appoint them. Therefore, they were not "public officers."<br>
<br>
Hence, the legal moral of the story: keep the definition of who
is subject to an ethics code's jurisdiction as broad as possible. Keep
out any language that is not absolutely necessary to make a distinction
between, say, a department head and a secretary.<br>
<br>
But more important is the ethical moral of the story.<br>
<br>
The public information officer for the largest school district in the
state, with a budget of $7 billion, responded to an NPRI request for
financial disclosure statements, "[B]e advised that the law does not
apply to superintendents of schools. As a result, there are no records
responsive to your request."<br>
<br>
Since the state EC cannot make a determination on an issue without
either a complaint or the official requesting an advisory opinion
(another legal problem), and the 17 superintendents had not
requested an advisory opinion, no one could question this position without
filing a complaint.<br>
<br>
This changed when the largest school district hired a new superintendent,
who did ask for an advisory opinion. In <a href="http://www.npri.org/publications/ethics-commission-counsel-confirms-nev…; target="”_blank”">an
NPRI news report last week</a>, we learn that the state EC confirmed
that superintendents are indeed not required to file disclosure
statements. But the request enabled the EC to submit a bill to the
legislature to amend the definition of "public officer" to include
school superintendents. A good legal ending to the story, assuming the
bill passes.<br>
<br>
But there's still the ethical moral of the story: Just because
you're not required by a poorly written law to file a statement you
know you should file, that doesn't absolve you of the ethical
obligation to file it. It's good to go through the proper legal
channels to get the law interpreted and changed, but that doesn't mean
you shouldn't file statements in the meantime. Or even if the
legislature refused to amend the definition.<br>
<br>
The reason is that ethics is not law. Laws are minimum requirements.
Individuals who are not required to follow an ethics code are not
absolved from acting ethically; they are only absolved from
enforcement. This goes for council members who except themselves from
an ethics code, union members whose contract absolves them from ethics
jurisdiction, and anyone else who is excluded for any reason, good or
bad.<br>
<br>
You would think that a school superintendent would understand the
importance of educating about values and educating through example.
What a good opportunity it would have been to teach their students and
colleagues that doing the right thing is more important than following
the letter of the law, especially when the letter of the law provides
an unintended loophole. Improving both ethics and education requires leadership.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---