Adjusting the moral compass

My Dad did his National Service with the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, and then joined the Royal Fusiliers, post-University.

I think of him often, but most deeply at this time of year, six years after his passing. He instilled in me core values of duty, service, respect, honour, pride.

Some would call those values old-fashioned. I would say they’re timeless. The Nolan Principles - the Seven Principles of Public Life - echo what we remember around Armistice Day – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.

They remind those in public life that the power they hold is lent to them to be used for the public good.

But in 2024 it's less an echo that we're hearing, and more a full-blown, resounding, reverberating, ringing tocsin.

UK Ministerial Code

Last week, the Prime Minister published an updated Ministerial Code.

In the first paragraph of his foreword, he writes:

Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era. The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better. For a long time, they have looked at the conduct of politicians in Westminster and not seen the high standards of public service they expect or deserve.

The moral compass that has steered the revision is the recognition that public service is a privilege not an entitlement. The aim is to move away from the excesses of the past towards one of consistent service.

For the first time, the Seven Principles of Public Life are enshrined in the Code. And it reminds holders of public office of the uncomplicated but broad scope of their responsibilities to:

??be courteous, professional, considerate and respectful

??comply with the law

??protect the integrity of public life.

One might debate whether the Labour Party has showcased everything the new Code espouses since 4 July, but the revision is overdue and the signal it sends is the right one.

The President's Ethics Plan

And then there's the USA, which might ideally calibrate the moral compass for much of the world.

On January 20, 2021 (no hanging about - that was the day he took office), President Joseph Biden signed the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel. At its core is an Ethics Pledge, which includes the following statement, signed by every appointee in every executive agency:

I recognize that this pledge is part of a broader ethics in government plan designed to restore and maintain public trust in government, and I commit myself to conduct consistent with that plan.

In 2009, when he took office, President Barack Obama promised his administration would have the highest ethical standards in history. He issued Executive Order 13490, which required political employees to sign that Ethics Pledge, tightening rules for his administration beyond even those followed by career officials.

That followed President George H. W. Bush who, between 1989 and 1992, created a set of 14 principles of ethical conduct for federal employees and the Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, which still apply today.

Before that, in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon was the unwilling catalyst for the Ethics in Government Act and, way back in 1921, the taking of bribes by one of President Warren Harding's team led to various conflict-of-interest statutes.

But you may have noticed a weakness.

The President of the United States, as an elected rather than hired or appointed representative of the people, is not subject to any specific statute or rule governing his or her ethical conduct. While they are subject to a civil suit and criminal prosecution for violations of common laws, presidents are generally immune from punishment for conduct related to their official acts. In other words, presidents are generally free to lie or misrepresent facts, as long as they do not intentionally defame any specific person or persons in doing so.

In fact, the only practical remedies to unethical conduct on the part of the president are the constant vigilance of a well-informed public, congressional oversight, and ultimately the threat of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

That's why the other things matter.

Every President-elect must submit a legally required commitment to avoid conflicts of interest and other ethical concerns while in office.

The Presidential Transaction Act, as amended by Congress in 2019, requires that an Ethics Plan be submitted by 1 October on the year of the Presidential election - before the election is run. And you've guessed it, President Donald Trump's team have not yet provided it.

On Friday of last week, 9 November, the New York Times reported that:

While the transition team's leadership has privately drafted an ethics code and conflict-of-interest statement governing its staff, those documents do not include language, required under the law, that explains how Mr. Trump himself will address conflicts of interest during his presidency.

An oversight, you say?

The evidence suggests otherwise. Since the President-elect created his transition team in August, it has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, missing multiple deadlines that have prevented key briefings and access.

It would be wrong for me to draw any conclusion for you. But I will point out that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a powerful watchdog group, identify more than 3,400 conflicts of interest tied to the incoming President during his first administration.

Hmm.

As we remember the greatest sacrifice made by so many, those who misuse and abuse their Office would do well to reflect what has allowed those powers to exist.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Next time: "Stewardship"

?? Please share and invite colleagues to ? subscribe if they would value #everydaymusings about governance and leadership.

?? ??? Please comment to share your thoughts.