 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
October 2004 Ethics Dunces
Senator Mark DaytonCan we all agree that Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton is an Ethics Dunce for the ages, not to mention October, 2004?
Spooked by worst case scenario security briefings about a theoretical pre-election terrorist attack on Capitol Hill, the Senator closed down his DC office and sent his staff, and himself, packing until November 2 has passed.
The dunce part is a no-brainer, pardon the pun. There is really no more reason to fear an attack before the election than after; DC is and will remain a prime target of terrorists until either the US moves the Capitol to Enid, Oklahoma or the terrorists give up their vocation to become volleyball players. So Dayton has managed to show panic when none is warranted, like George Costanza did periodically on Seinfeld. Nor is there any reason to believe that Minnesota is necessarily safer than DC. If the terrorists were smart, they might figure out that an attack in the heartland would be both easier to pull off and more unsettling. Does Dayton really think he can hide from terrorism in its many forms? Tell that to the families in Oklahoma City. Hmmm…maybe Enid isn't such a good idea after all.
But the ethics part is where Dayton really deserves condemnation, and in 2006, defeat at the polls. He dared to make an ethical argument for his grand weenie-ness, saying that he closed his office "out of extreme, but necessary, precaution to protect the lives and safety of my Senate staff and my Minnesota constituents, who might otherwise visit my office in the next few weeks." Chris Lisi, Mr. Dayton's communications director, clarified the Democrat's stand, saying, "His number one concern is the safety and security of his staff." Well, that's not supposed to be his number one concern as a leader in the U.S. Government. His number one concern is to lead by example, showing Americans that their elected officials have courage and fortitude, and won't turn tail at the first hint of danger. His number one concern should be not to encourage terrorists by displaying terror himself at the very possibility of being under attack. His number one concern should be showing the residents of Washington D.C., who can't just pack up and leave, that their nation's representatives stand with them. A spokesman for Norm Coleman, Minnesota's Republican Senator, got it exactly right when he said, "You do not abandon your post as a member of the United States Senate when there is no evidence of an imminent or impending threat." And there is a good argument to be had over whether you abandon your post even then. But there is not much argument over the proper characterization of Dayton's actions.
When reports came out that Al Qaeda had become convinced that Americans had become soft, and that the terrorists were sure that the Twin Towers bombing would reduce the US to hand-wringing and hysteria, it was the Mark Daytons that they were thinking of. Fortunately for America and the world, there are few such individuals in the Senate and the Congress. In 2006, the voters of Minnesota have to make certain that there is one less.
It is a fair bet that when your Ethics Scoreboard Ethics Dunce concurs in the justification for the honor, you've found the Real McCoy. Thus it is that I willingly take on the dubious designation myself this month. I deserve it. And so that others may avoid my fate, here's how it happened.
I had agreed to moderate a program at an ethics conference in a far away city, and settled on compensation, expenses and the tasks required. I also managed to enter the event in the wrong week in my computer calendar, so that when the day of my appearance arrived, I was on the wrong side of the continent with no way to meet my obligations. The nice people who asked me to participate were put in a terrible situation, and I was at fault.
Of course, it was a mistake; several, in fact. I made the commitment on the run, rushing between out-of-town seminars. I never asked for confirmation, or a letter of agreement; all the arrangements were made orally. And I was so engrossed in other work that I didn't give the requisite amount of thought to the basics of what, where, and how. I had a cold; I was tired, distracted and stressed.
Still, competence is an ethical value. My ineptitude in scheduling and taking care to see that I was taking necessary steps to plan my trip resulted in harm to others, and I own and am responsible for that result. It is the ethical duty of all of us as we interact with others in business, socially, or in any setting where there is mutual dependence to be efficient, careful, diligent and competent. Part of that duty involves recognizing when your physical, emotional or mental health may get in the way of your commitments. An amazing proportion of unethical conduct occurs because someone isn't thinking clearly because they are pressured, ill, exhausted, angry or depressed. Those are pre-conditions to unethical conduct, and therefore we all must take the necessary step to either avoid them, or not to make decisions when under their influence.
It is ethical to be competent, and unethical to fall victim to carelessness, sloppiness, inattention, or confusion when others are relying on your performance. Of all the ethical values, competence is one of the most difficult, because it requires special effort. Botching a commitment by misreading a calendar is a particularly dumb mistake, but it is not enough to feel stupid. It is important to feel unethical as well, to assign a proper level of importance to "an honest mistake."
So I take my rightful place among the Ethics Dunces. I'm hoping that once will be enough.
What day is it, again??