Ethics Institute Maps Out Road to ‘New Civic Virtue’

Is it too soon to worry about the equivalent of a “Keating Five” blight on the tender flower of democracy in Eastern Europe?

Not for attorney Michael Josephson.

Josephson believes governments emerging from communism’s collapse could fritter away moral capital on scandals analogous to the savings and loan fiasco that has enveloped five U.S. Senators.

“What we’re afraid of is that you start with this massive euphoria of pro-democracy (in Eastern Europe), and it will start turning into the reality of contending self-interests and corruption and selfishness,” says Josephson, sitting in his antique-furnished office in Marina del Rey. “That in turn could create another small revolution, which leads to dictatorship.”

In fact, for this independently wealthy ethics advocate, it’s never too early to fret about the insidious inroads of corruption, whether in the Iron Curtain rust belt or the mountain-rimmed vastness of Juneau, Alaska.

And those are exactly the places where Josephson--a singled-minded, voluble former law professor who made his money in publishing and bar exam review courses--has made inroads of his own lately.

Last month, the Alaska Senate passed--largely intact--ethics legislation drafted by the 5-year-old Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute for the Advancement of Ethics, founded by the 47-year-old lawyer in honor of his parents. Josephson’s interest in ethics was fanned by a class he taught on the subject at Loyola University Law School in 1976. Today, ethics has become an all-consuming interest, he says, explaining that his only outside interest is his 14-year-old son, Justin. “A lot of this for me is fun. . . . It’s just great stuff to do.”

This week, a paper drafted by the institute, “Preserving the Public Trust: Principles of Public Service Ethics,” will be distributed to 175 political and economic officials from former Eastern Bloc countries at a meeting in Stockholm.

The paper, first issued in March, is a manifesto on the “moral obligations” of public servants that “transcend obligations imposed by laws and formal codes of conduct.”

Furthermore, Josephson touts “Preserving the Public Trust” as a document that breaks new ground in mapping out the straight and narrow for public officials. It details, he maintains, “the root of not only the fundamental ethical obligation of public officials, but the root of every corruption of public officials.”

A statement of five principles in 23 pages, the paper represents perhaps the first coherent articulation of how democratic leaders can keep the faith with constituents, Josephson claims. Forged over 18 months, the paper was drafted by a commission of former government officials, politicians, journalists and scholars, including former State Department spokesman Hodding Carter III.

Among other things, the paper asserts that public officials should use their offices “to advance public interests, and not to attain personal benefits or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good.” The paper also emphasizes that officials should always make decisions objectively, conduct public business openly, honor “the principles and spirit of representative democracy,” and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

While these points may seem elementary, Josephson says the paper grew out of his discovery of widespread imprecision regarding ethical concepts, even among veterans of public life.

“There was no coherent understanding or statement of what do we mean by that--what does it mean to live up to the notion of public trust?” he says.

But Josephson is a realist. He says he does not expect the paper to change anyone--at least not immediately--including the officials of the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania and other Eastern European countries who will get copies this week.

“This is not--and I want to stress this--ever something that will make a bad person good,” he says. “Statements of principle don’t make bad people good. Statements of principle will, however, guide people of good will.”

Distribution of the paper to Eastern Europe officials was engineered by Richard Shubert, a former president of Bethlehem Steel and the American Red Cross, who is a consultant to the Institute for East West Securities Studies of New York, which is sponsoring the Stockholm conference.

Schubert, who helped draft the paper, says he sees it as a “a think-provoking document” that will outline some problems of democracy for novices in representative government.

If nothing else, Josephson says, the paper will serve as a counterweight to other American political exports to fledgling democracies. “What are we sending to Eastern Europe? Pollsters, all our campaign manager types who are advising people on how to run campaigns,” he says with chagrin. “In some of our views, not the highest and best of what we have to offer in a political system.”

Both Josephson and Schubert say, however, that problems other than ethics are going to top the officials’ agenda. “The last thing they want to hear about probably is ethics and principles,” says Josephson. “They’re very much concerned with food and getting their economies going.”

In contrast, the Alaska Legislature saw ethics as a top priority when it asked Josephson’s institute to draft legislation on proper conduct for lawmakers earlier this year.

The bill struck some Alaska politicians as Draconian. It severely limited campaign fund raising, imposed a ban on converting campaign funds to personal use, put a one-year ban on former legislators and legislative aides lobbying in the Legislature, required stricter financial disclosure, placed an almost total ban on privately funded travel, prohibited legislators from representing legal clients before state agencies and established general standards of rectitude for legislators.

The bill was not welcomed in some quarters, acknowledges Alaska Senate President Tim Kelly, a strong backer of the bill who noted that Josephson’s brash attitude was sometimes an impediment.

“His argumentative nature sometimes rubbed people the wrong way,” Kelly says, adding that this provided ammunition for the bill’s enemies. “Some thought they could discredit the message if they could discredit the messenger.”

The Anchorage Daily News reported one hallway encounter between Josephson and a lobbyist Bill Ray:

Josephson: “I thought you were a lobbyist.”

Ray: “I’m a consultant.”

Josephson: “OK, that’s precisely the kind of distinctions that aren’t acceptable under this code. I mean, you call a spade a spade. . . .”

Ray: “I know a hell of a lot more about the Alaska Legislature than you do, I’ll tell you that much.”

Josephson: “You certainly do. And that’s why they needed an outsider.”

Josephson recalls that he had many spirited exchanges in Juneau--and met with a good deal of incomprehension. One legislator, he was told, reacted to proposed publication of floor votes by saying, “That’s nobody’s business.” Unfortunately for Josephson, his bill was not passed by the Alaskan House, which dropped the legislation on a procedural vote minutes before adjournment last month.

Both Kelly and Josephson say, however, that the bill will come up again, either in next year’s session or in a special session this summer.

Meanwhile, Josephson will keep spreading his message, using “Preserving the Public Trust” as “a kind of a road map for a new civic virtue.”

After these words roll off his tongue, he quickly adds: “I know that sounds pretentious, I know that makes people nervous, but democracy is so inherently idealistic . . . if we can’t be idealistic about our ideals, we lose them.”