Category: Ethics in Government

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government

I’m not used to nodding yes when US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speaks. But his remarks to a business group in Portland, Oregon definitely resonate:

But our dream can also be tarnished and diminished by government and corporate scandal.

I’ve told Department prosecutors to operate with one principle in mind: No one is above the law-not a city councilman, a CEO, or a Member of Congress.

The role of the Department is not to discourage business risks that are rewarded or punished in the marketplace. Rather, we seek to prosecute those who engage in lawless practices. In this same spirit, we will protect intellectual property rights as well against domestic and international piracy.

The protection of the civil rights of all Americans is an historic mission of the Department of Justice and an essential element of realizing the American Dream.

We will continue to aggressively combat discrimination wherever it is found. For example, we recently announced Operation Home Sweet Home, an expansion of our Fair Housing Act testing program.

This mission includes protecting the rights of those with disabilities and institutionalized persons. We’re also vigorously working to end the modern-day slavery of human trafficking.

Let me reflect for a moment on one major right, the key political right, the right to vote. Three years ago, when I was White House Counsel to President Bush, my then 72-year-old mother visited Washington, DC and the Oval Office for the first time. My mom never voted until she was 50. She explained that it had become a different time for people of color in America.

Laudable sentiments, all. I hope this means we can count on Mr. Gonzales to support and vigorously enforce laws that provide consequences for business ethics violations, as well as for HR 550 — The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by a number of Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

This would provide for voter-verifiable, auditable paper trails in conjunction with the electronic voting screens so common these days–and thus would prevent the scandalously unverifiable questionable results we’ve seen in the last few elections.

The e-mail I received about it (from TrueMajority.org) notes,

It already has the bipartisan support of 1/3 of the House of Representatives, and has been endorsed by VoteTrustUSA and VerifiedVoting.org as the “gold standard” in verifiability legislation. Not only would it mandate a voter verified paper record for every vote cast, it would also:

(1) establish a mandatory uniform national standard that states that the voter verified paper ballot — the only record verified by the voter rather than the voting machine — is the vote of record in the case of any inconsistency with electronic records;

(2) provide Federal funding to pay for implementation of voter verified paper balloting;

(3) require a percentage of mandatory manual (by hand count) random audits of actual election results in every state, and in each county, for every Federal election;

(4) prohibit the use at any time of undisclosed software, wireless communication devices, and Internet connections in voting machines;

(5) require full implementation by 2006; and

(6) protect the accessibility mandates of the Help America Vote Act.

The language in this bill was carefully written with input from computer scientists, disabilities organizations, and election reform advocates. It should be passed as written and in time to protect the 2006 elections.

There are many politically contentious election reform issues mentioned in the report but making sure that votes are counted accurately is not one of them. Elections are the foundation of a representative democracy, and representative democracy lives or dies based on the integrity of its elections. HR 550 will help restore voters’ confidence and ensure the accuracy and integrity of America’s elections.

Attorney General Gonzales, I look forward to your public support o this important legislation.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics

Unbelievable! The goon squad is going after veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, one of the few people in the White House Press Corps who actually still remembers how to ask an intelligent question or engage in critical thought.

Earth to Planet Bill O’Reilly: do you and your “colleagues” need a refresher course in the First Amendment?

It goes like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You say we’re in Iraq to to fight for democracy–well, how about a little democracy at home?

Thomas was absolutely in line to ask why GWB took us to war in Iraq. After all, nobody’s found any weapons of mass destruction, Al Queda had no significant presence there until after the US attacked (though it certainly has one now, thanks to the predictably myopic policies of the Bush administration), and the enemy that had attacked us was thousands of miles away in Afghanistan.

Bush, who almost never calls on Thomas and rarely calls on other reporters he can expect to ask hard questions (such as NPR’s Don Gonyea), gave a rambling, unfocused, and materially incorrect answer, and then patted himself on the back for taking a question from Thomas. Did he get attacked for this shameful, embarrassing performance? No–the attacks were against Helen Thomas.

O’Reilly:”I would have laid into that woman, and I don’t care how old she is,”
Don Imus: “The old bag should shut up and get out. I’m sick of her.”
Ticker Carlson: “Propagandist.”

Hey, pundits–the reason we have a First Amendment is that our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of an open press wiling to examine critically the actions of those in power whether in government or in the private sector. Questioning a policy based on lies and foggy vision is a high act of patriotism, IMHO.

Or perhaps the O’Reillys and Imuses of the world think that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were unpatriotic scum. King George would have agreed with them, but he had some reasons. the ability to criticize was written into the Constitution by these true American heroes over 200 years ago, and thank goodness for their foresight.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Uncategorized

We all thought this was going to change in the fall. That’s when a spate of stories hit the news about the no-bid contracts on Katrina reconstruction, mostly awarded to large enterprises with close ties to the Bush administration and the military establishment, such as Halliburton and Bechtel.

Here, among many examples, is a Washington Post story from September 29, in which…

The officials responsible for monitoring more than $60 billion in federal Hurricane Katrina spending promised yesterday to take a hard look at every no-bid contract awarded since the storm and to investigate the adequacy of contracts the government had in place before disaster struck.

Yet, here we are, six months later. And the government has reneged. Today’s Associated Press wire story shows FEMA’s dismal failure to keep its word.

And not only that, but the usual percentages set aside for small (as the government laughably defines them–far bigger than most of the businesses I deal with) and minority-owned businesses aren’t even close to being achieved.

Whether it’s incompetence or malfeasance, it looks might funky from here.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Uncategorized

If you follow business scandals, as I do, you’ll notice that a good many of the largest take place outside the US. There are constant reports from Japan, China, Africa, and elsewhere. In Europe, Italy’s Parmalat scandal got a fair bit of attention, among others.

So it was rather a shock to read this Newsweek article about the dramatic collapse of a large state-owned bank due to poorly chosen investments in real estate deals that went ahead without the usual scrutiny.

What’s really disturbing is that people knew about this all the way back to 2000. German taxpayers are left holding the bag underneath the rubble of Bankgesellschaft Berlin (BGB). The first trials of the company’s executives began last month.

Noting that the Enron debacle helped push through Sarbanes-Oxley and other reforms, Newsweek expresses its surprise that…

In Germany the response has been almost the opposite—public indifference and an official response that, at best, has been tepid and, at worst, amounts to a deliberate effort to enshroud the case in “extreme secrecy,” according to corruption watchdog group Transparency International.

We had our own bank scandal based on “handshake” approvals for real estate deals here in Western Massachusetts about 15 years ago, and it took down one of the largest regional banks. The beautiful Northampton main branch, once the corporate headquarters, still remains vacant after more than a decade. But there was no shortage of reporting about it, and I think that made the banking community stronger—because the community wanted to protect itself from such a thing happening again.

The article goes on to criticize the secretive German business structure that makes it hard to investigate or reform. Something German citizens who care about these things may want to change.

Interestingly enough, I haven’t had a single signer of the Business Ethics Pledge from Germany. Any Germans want to step up and be first?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

The February 06 issue of Business Ethics Magazine’s online edition includes this shocking note: A business lobbying firm called the Free Enterprise Forum has joined with an unnamed Nevada accounting firm to attack the Public Accounting Oversight Board, a key provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform law of 2002.

SarbOx is pretty mild stuff, compared to the laws I might have written. But corporations do find it burdensome, with all the reporting requirements, etc. Still, they’ve had four years to get used to it, and it’s pretty amazing to come across remarks like this, from FEF chair Mallory Factor:

“It’s a bad law and we’ll get rid of it any way we can.”

Oh, and guess who’s on their legal team: Ken “Monica Lewinsky” Starr, and one of GWB’s former U.S. assistant attorneys general for legal policy, Viet Dinh.

Starr spent millions of our tax dollars chasing down Clinton’s apparent inability to keep his pants zipped (or to tell the truth about it)–and now he’s attacking the ethics watchdogs. Hmmm.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

Found a very interesting blog examining the issue of Dick Cheney having an ambulance always at the ready:

That the nation’s vice president and de-facto leader is so frail and so close to death’s door…should surely have been a major topic of conversation during the 2004 election.

But nobody mentioned it.

It’s also worth pointing out that this same administration that is spending what must be millions of dollars on a mobile cardiac unit to travel with the vice president is calling for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that will force poor Americans and the elderly to make do with second-tier medications for such things as heart conditions.

This blog is not set up with blog software. At the moment this is the second post. Or search for
Ambulance Chasing and the Veep

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

Now they’re reclassifying ancient once-classified documents, many of them with no secrecy value anymore and some of them widely published, The New York Times reports.

Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid [a researcher] found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.

Does this really need to be a secret? It’s been over 15 years since there even was an Iron Curtain!

National Archives officials said the program had revoked access to 9,500 documents, more than 8,000 of them since President Bush took office.

Surely, there are more effective ways of deploying our anti-terrorism resources.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government

This article from Maclean’s covers many of the ethics issues involving business and China–not just the current controversy over Chinese censorship of the Internet (and the horrible fact that “Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for divulging state secrets over the Net. Tao anonymously posted details of the government’s plans to limit coverage of the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on a pro-democracy website, and Yahoo handed over his identity to Chinese authorities”)–but also looks at a wide range of issues involving western companies in China, from the making of clothing to the environmental and human rights nightmare of the Three Gorges Dam.

The article also compliments Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), who “is sponsoring a draft bill that would require Web companies to establish a code of conduct for operating in repressive regimes, prohibiting them from facilitating unreasonable censorship or co-operating in the abuse of human rights.”

And the article has a very illuminating comparison of how the international business community helped force the end of apartheid in South Africa, and what is not being done in China–or, for that matter, in Sudan.

Go read it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

Even George Will thinks Bush has gone too far with his illegal spying.

If the Bush doctrine holds, he writes, future administrations won’t even bother consulting Congress even before going to war:

Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration’s stance…

And derides Bush for a double standard on new interpretations of the law.

Worth reading.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail