For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Over the weekend, in the run-up to this week’s Super Tuesday primaries, I fell into conversation with a local contractor doing some work around our house. Having known him for years, I have no doubt about his integrity, honesty, and responsibility. Yet when the discussion turned to national security, he articulated a chilling point with a shrug of inevitability.

“We may have to sacrifice some ethics,” he said, “to deal with terrorists.”

In his own life, I can’t imagine him deliberately choosing to “sacrifice some ethics” in order to “deal with” a problem. Ideally, he doesn’t want his government to do so, either. But his trust is fading. So frustrated has he become that he’s willing to accept for his country what he would find repugnant for himself.

Nor is he alone. I suspect there are millions like him, longing to have a government that does the right thing, yet wondering whether doing right is feasible in today’s world.

In recent months, the presidential candidates have been battered with questions about war, terrorism, and security. At bottom, however, these aren’t the questions that concern my friend. He’s looking for broader indicators of style and values — the way a candidate will manage the affairs of state and the moral standards that shape his or her character. What he longs to know is really quite simple: Which of you, if elected, will do the right thing regularly and still keep us safe and prosperous?

But what does “doing the right thing” mean for a candidate? Fortunately, a survey issued last week on ethics in government sheds valuable light on the nature of moral character. Based on data gathered last summer by the Washington-based Ethics Resource Center (ERC), the next president will face a federal government system that is significantly challenged:

• About half of federal employees surveyed observed misconduct at their place of work in the past year.
• Of those who observed misconduct, one in four didn’t report it — and those who did often reported only to their immediate superiors rather than to senior management.
• About 20 percent of federal employees work in “environments conducive to misconduct,” where they are “introduced to situations inviting wrongdoing and/or feel pressured to cut corners to do their jobs.”
• Many who reported misconduct were subject to retaliation, and many who failed to report attributed their silence to a fear of retaliation.

The ERC report traces a decline of ethics standards in recent years, and it warns of higher ethics risks in the future, but it also sketches out remedies. These include elevating ethics on the public agenda, focusing on the tone at the top, and moving beyond mere compliance to the creation of ethical cultures.

Why does all of this matter? Because, as the report argues, “the most important asset of government is public trust,” and because “misconduct that is most prevalent and least reported poses the greatest risk to public trust.”

Seen through this lens, presidential character becomes a vital issue. For government to be effective, it must be ethical. The most important influence on government is its senior leadership. If the president is not deliberately focused on elevating the ethics of government — both talking the talk and walking the walk — the risks to public trust are significant.

What, then, should we be looking for in a candidate? Three things:

• Avoiding misconduct. We want a president who recognizes and eschews moral misconduct — and has no history of it. Misconduct includes (in the ERC’s language) such things as abusive behavior, lying to employees, conflict of interest, misusing confidential information, altering documents, changing financial records, bribery, stealing, and using competitors’ inside information. Do any of the presidential candidates have a complex relationship with any of these things?
• Taking responsibility. Some 21 percent of government employees think top leaders aren’t held accountable for their own ethics violations — the double-standards problem. One quarter think top leaders tolerate retaliation against those who report misconduct, and 30 percent don’t believe top leadership keeps its promises. Which candidates have visible records of accountability, non-retaliation, and promise keeping?
• Promoting ethical cultures. According to the ERC, ethical cultures are those in which top management can be trusted, managers at all levels encourage ethical behavior, there is strong peer support among employees for ethical action (and peer revulsion to its opposite), and the values that are visible through informal channels are the same as the ones formally articulated. Which candidate is most willing to invest energy in promoting an ethical culture throughout government?

Do we have to sacrifice ethics to deal with tough issues? No. As we go to the polls, we’re looking for a president who knows that, feels it, and can inspire an entire nation to believe it.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“Barbed-wire barricades surround the residence, and all phone lines are cut. Even the water connection to my residence has been periodically turned off. I am being persuaded to resign and to forego my office, which is what I am not prepared to do…. There can be no democracy without an independent judiciary, and there can be no independent judge in Pakistan until the action of Nov. 3 is reversed. Whatever the will of some desperate men, the struggle of the valiant lawyers and civil society of Pakistan will bear fruit. They are not giving up.”

– From an open letter released last week by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the former chief justice of Pakistan, who was removed from office and placed under virtual house arrest by Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf shortly before a supreme court ruling that was expected to find it illegal for Musharraf to continue running the country. Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, shut down the nation’s private TV stations, and jailed several justices and lawyers of the supreme court, sparking a groundswell of anger and discontent that continues to simmer, according to the New York Times.

Source: New York Times, Jan. 31.

For more information, see: Text of Chaudhry’s open letter, via the New York Times — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007.

In related news, a study says corruption still is endemic worldwide despite reforms

WASHINGTON
Surveys released last week say that ethical breaches are becoming more common in the U.S. government and that corruption continues to choke governments worldwide despite some hopeful reforms.

A study from the Ethics Resource Center found that nearly 60 percent of government employees in the United States — across a spectrum of federal, state, and local agencies — witnessed workplace violations of ethics standards or laws within the last year, the Washington Post reports.

Most of the breaches were reported at the local level, according to the Associated Press. Sixty-three percent of local government employees said they had observed at least one type of ethics transgression, ranging from abusive behavior by a supervisor to bribery. For state employees, the figure was 57 percent; for federal employees, 52 percent.

While the rate of reporting incidents has increased over the past several years, the report’s authors warn that whistle-blowing reports were generally made to lower-level managers, meaning that high-level executives may not be aware of the extent of misconduct in their agencies, according to the trade journal Government Executive.

A separate study conducted by the watchdog group Global Integrity classifies more than half of the examined countries as “weak” or “very weak” when fighting corruption, according to a summary from Voice of America.

A troubling finding: While many countries recently have codified tough anticorruption laws and regulation, enforcement is often weak or nonexistent.

Global Integrity director Nathaniel Heller points to Pakistan as an example. “You have a huge gap between theoretical laws on the books for anticorruption and their enforcement,” he said, according to the VOA report.

“In many developing countries you will have outstanding laws, but the problem in most, and in a place like Pakistan, is that you have very little implementation and enforcement. And that really, ultimately, goes back to political will.”

Sources: Washington Post, Feb. 1 — Government Executive, Feb. 1 — Voice of America, Feb. 1 — AP, Jan. 30.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Text of Ethics Resource Center report, Jan. 29 — Text of Global Integrity Report, undated.

In other items, mortgage brokers trumpet ethics in aftermath of subprime meltdown, and BusinessWeek columnist looks at one ethical aspect of the run-up to the Super Bowl — office gambling

PARIS and NEW YORK
Several reports about business ethics appeared in the world press last week. Among the major stories:

• As of late last week, a clearer picture was emerging of the circumstances that led to what may be the largest bank fraud in world history. The Wall Street Journal reports that an investigation alleges that Jérôme Kerviel, who earned about $70,000 per year, bypassed internal controls in order to gamble more than the entire net worth of his employer, Société Générale, on a series of real and fictitious deals. The Journal reports that emerging details show that Kerviel disdained his superiors, openly flouting their rules, while at the same time higher-ups ignored a series of warnings that something was amiss. Kerviel, talking to investigators, chided bank officials for missing an obvious symptom: He only took four days off last year. “It is one of the first rules of internal controls: A trader who doesn’t take holidays is a trader who doesn’t want his books to be seen by others,” he said, according to the Journal.
• Mortgage brokers, rocked by a slowing economy and the related aftershocks of the subprime lending debacle, are mounting new efforts to persuade the public that they are ethical, reports the International Herald Tribune. According to the story: “To combat a shady public image, many mortgage brokers are using promises of ethical behavior as a marketing tool through groups like the Upfront Mortgage Brokers Association, whose members pledge not to saddle borrowers with unexpected charges.” Also, the industry’s largest trade group is offering a voluntary “seal of approval” for brokers who sign onto an ethics code.
• In the run-up to last Sunday’s Super Bowl, BusinessWeek weighs in on the ethics of office gambling. In a commentary, Bruce Weinstein argues that even if gambling is viewed as a proper social activity under some circumstances, “the office … simply isn’t an appropriate place for gambling. It’s called a workplace for a reason: It’s the place where we’re supposed to work. Things that interfere with doing our job should be done before or after work.” Weinstein also contends: “If even a small percentage of customers, board members, and shareholders is likely to be troubled by the practice of on-site betting, that alone is sufficient cause for concern. Some stakeholders may have religious objections to it. Others might be concerned that employees will not give their full attention to their work. A third group may simply view gambling on the job as unseemly. Whatever the objections are, they deserve to be taken seriously.”

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2 — International Herald Tribune, Feb. 1 — BusinessWeek, Feb. 1.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007.

Attorney for Brian Mulroney says panel has no right to see his personal tax records; Mulroney says the probe smacks of political revenge

OTTAWA
An ethics probe involving former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney heated up last week as an attorney for Mulroney locked horns with the House of Commons Ethics Committee.

The Toronto Globe & Mail reports that Mulroney’s attorney objects to the committee’s demand for records of personal taxes and cash expenditures for both Mulroney and his wife.

The committee is probing the former PM’s business relationship with a German-Canadian arms lobbyist. At issue are cash transfers an aide alleges are linked to Mulroney’s former official residence in Ottawa, according to a report from the Toronto Star.

Mulroney, reportedly furious about his treatment by the committee, argues that the panel is going beyond the scope of its investigation and is smearing his reputation for partisan purposes, according to the Canadian National Post.

Current prime minister Stephen Harper has promised a full public inquiry once the ethics committee has finished its formal investigation, which could continue for several months, reports CanWest News Service.

Sources: Globe & Mail, Jan. 30 — Toronto Star, Jan. 30 — National Post, Jan. 30 — CanWest News Service, Jan. 30.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 21, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 18, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 29, 2007.

Tape shows workers at California plant poking and kicking cows apparently too weak to walk

LOS ANGELES
An ethics controversy involving the treatment of slaughterhouse animals has education officials in several parts of the United States asking school districts to stop serving many beef products.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the action came after allegations that a California-based slaughterhouse butchered and distributed sick cattle. So-called downer cattle are more likely to carry certain diseases.

According to the Times report, the California Department of Education asked schools to temporarily take many beef products off their menus after the Humane Society of the United States released a video the group said was obtained during a six-week undercover investigation.

The video shows cows, apparently too sick or weak to walk, being jabbed with forklift blades, kicked, shocked, or sprayed with jets of water, according to reports from ABC News and CBS News.

“The attempt was to make them so distressed, to cause them so much suffering that these animals would get up and walk into the slaughterhouse,” Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle told CBS.

The animals were processed at the Hallmark Meat Packing Company, which supplies Westland Meat Company, a major supplier to the USDA’s school lunch program, according to CBS. Westland suspended operations at the plant, with the company’s president and CEO saying he was “shocked, saddened, and sickened” by the video.

School districts in other parts of the nation, including Washington State and Minnesota, have pulled some beef products pending the outcome of an investigation, according to various press reports.

Sources: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 1 — Los Angeles Times, Feb. 1 — ABC News, Feb. 1 — CBS, Jan. 31– San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 31 — St. Paul Pioneer Press, Jan. 31.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 7 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 22, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 4, 2007.

What may be the largest police-corruption case in Canadian history is thrown out because of delays; “ethical lapses, systemic inaccuracy, and negligence” cited by judges who threw out cases because of problems at a Seattle forensics lab; and the New York Times chronicles how a favor between two friends on the force escalated into criminal charges

VARIOUS DATELINES
Ethics issues involving law enforcement made news last week. Among the stories:

• Long-standing charges against six current and former Toronto police officers — part of what is believed to be the largest police-corruption case in Canadian history — collapsed last week after a court ruled that lengthy delays in the case violated the defendants’ rights. According to reports from the CBC and the Toronto Star, the six were former members of the Toronto drug squad and faced a variety of charges, including extortion, theft, assault, and perjury. The CBC says the case was investigated by a 25-member task force, and about $6 million was spent in the process. The massive probe began almost 10 years ago after 200 drug cases were thrown out after arrestees alleged they had been beaten and robbed by police. A lawyer for the policemen charged in the case said they were relieved but saddened that they were not able “to be vindicated in the courtroom,” the CBC reported.
• A panel of three county judges in Seattle, Washington, last week ruled that “ethical lapses, systemic inaccuracy, negligence, and violations of scientific principles” occurred at a state toxicology lab handling breath-test samples given to suspected drunk drivers over a period of years. KING-TV reports that while the initial decision relates to only six cases, thousands of drunk-driving cases will be affected, though it is not expected that all charges will be dropped. According to the judges’ ruling, the lab mistakes included entering incorrect data, using bad software, and not keeping proper logs, KING-TV reports.
• A favor between two old friends allegedly crossed an ethical and legal line, snowballing into a series of corruption charges, the New York Times recounted in a piece last week. The story centers on Luis Batista and Henry Conde, who had known each other for about a decade. Prosecutors say that in November 2006, one needed a favor from the other: Detective Batista wanted Sergeant Conde, who worked in an internal-affairs unit, to check confidential records to see if Batista was under investigation. The answer was yes, and Batista, prosecutors allege, then began efforts to cover his tracks. His actions apparently drew both men deeper into the probe. Detective Batista, who was charged with drug trafficking, obstruction of justice, and bank fraud, was arraigned last Thursday and pleaded not guilty, according to the Times. Sergeant Conde was arrested in July, charged with telling two police officers, including Batista, about the probe. Conde pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and providing false statements to the FBI, the Times reports.

Sources: KING-TV, Feb. 1 — CBC, Feb. 1 — Toronto Star, Feb. 1 — New York Times, Feb. 1.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 10, 2007.

Financial Times analyzes ethics issues related to moving drug trials off shore

VARIOUS DATELINES
Stories related to biomedical research blinked brightly on the ethics radar last week. Among them:

• President Bush said the federal government will increase funds for “ethical” stem-cell research that does not involve destroying embryos. Bush made the remarks during his annual State of the Union address, praising the recent discovery allowing reprogramming of skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells, the Agence France-Presse reports. He said the development has “the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life.”
• Pope Benedict XVI, in one of his strongest statements to date on bioethics issues, said that embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination, and human cloning were areas of science that had “shattered” human dignity. Reuters reports that the speech was the latest in a series in which the conservative pope urged the public not to uncritically accept scientific developments.
• The Financial Times last week examined the ethics implications of moving clinical trials offshore to nations where restrictions might be looser than in the West. Financial Times reporter Andrew Jack writes: “The changing pattern of clinical trials is helping drug companies that are under pressure to deliver innovative medicines more quickly and sell them into new markets. But it also raises concerns over quality, research ethics, and the very lives of the patients participating, and is coming under increased political and regulatory scrutiny.” Jack reports that while clinical trials — experiments to prove the safety and efficacy of a medication — once were predominantly performed in North America and Western Europe, they have been relocating steadily since 2000 to China, India, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Sources: AFP, Feb. 1 — Scientific American, Feb. 1 — Winnipeg Sun, Feb. 1 — Financial Times, Feb. 1.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 1, 2007.

Journalist who covered case of party official charged with corruption winds up in jail; report notes that the Communist Party wants to eradicate corruption but apparently does not want to be embarrassed in the process

BEIJING
In China, covering a crime can also be a crime, according to a report from Chicago Tribune correspondent Evan Osnos.

Reporting from Beijing, Osnos relates the case of Wang Yuexi, a Chinese official who was arrested as part of the Communist Party’s massive crackdown on corruption and forced to repay about $360,000 in illicit gains.

As Osnos reports, the case then took a bizarre twist, possibly unique to the political climate of China: “Writer Lu Gengsong was tried last week for ‘inciting subversion of state power’ after penning five essays condemning the same offense that Wang is accused of: official corruption.”

Which is the greater crime — being corrupt or uncovering corruption? That question, Osnos writes, “is at the heart of China’s tortured effort to rid business and government of widespread abuses of power. Even as this one-party state improves anticorruption laws, it punishes those who speak out independently against powerful interests.”

A political scientist who studies corruption in China told the Tribune that the party is ambivalent about the dilemma, wanting to eliminate the problem but not wanting to be embarrassed in the process.

While Lu’s trial was concluded last week in secret, a verdict is not expected to be handed down for a month. Meanwhile, he remains in custody.

Source: Chicago Tribune, Feb. 1.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 7 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 26, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007.

“Just under three in five Americans believe juries can be fair and impartial all or most of the time”

From Harris Interactive®:

“One of the civil duties many people dread, or try to get out of, is jury duty. And many do seem to get out of it — while two-thirds (65%) of Americans have been called to serve jury duty, two-thirds of that (68%) actually attended, leaving one-third (32%) who did not. Of those who have attended jury duty, just over half (55%) have actually served on a jury. Bringing this back to the population as a whole, a plurality of Americans (44%) has attended jury duty and one-quarter (24%) has actually sat on a jury….

“Of those who have been called, however, men and women have served in similar numbers (56% and 53% respectively). The more education one has, the more likely one seems able to avoid serving on a jury. Over half (57%) of both those with a high school or less education and some college who have attended jury duty have actually served on a jury. Yet this number drops to just over half (52%) of those with a college degree and 48 percent of those with a post graduate education.

“Most of the time, those who were on a jury deliberated. Just over three-quarters (78%) say they reached a verdict, while one in five (19%) said the case was settled before they had to deliberate….

“Overall, Americans believe juries are able to be fair and impartial. A majority (58%) of adults say people on trial have a jury that is fair and impartial all or most of the time while one in five (21%) say the jury is fair and impartial occasionally. Just eight percent say juries are rarely or never fair and impartial. There is a racial disparity in this belief. Almost two-thirds (63%) of Whites and over half (55%) of Hispanics believe people who are on trial have a jury that is fair and impartial all or most of the time compared to just 37 percent of Blacks.

“In looking at a judge versus a jury and who would give a fair verdict in a trial, half of Americans (50%) would trust a jury to give a fair verdict while just under one-quarter (23%) would trust a judge and 27 percent are not sure….”

For the full press release from Harris, Jan. 21, click here.

“The justification of majority rule in politics is not to be found in its ethical superiority.”

– Walter Lippmann (U.S. writer, journalist, and political commentator, 1889-1974)