Justice Is More Than Being Squeaky Clean : Ethics: The new L.A. law misses the point, for honesty goes only part of the way to establishing equality and fairness.

A few weeks ago, at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum, John Ferraro made a presentation on issues facing the city. Interestingly, throughout the meeting, including the City Council president’s presentation, there were witty and sometimes sharp remarks about the new ethics regulations.

For example, during self-introductions, a deputy city attorney stood and said something like the following: “I want to make sure that I get everyone’s business cards so that I can let you know whether your presence is in compliance with the new ethics regulations.” The audience response was a chuckle and then subtle irritation.

A week earlier, the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which I organized 26 years ago, held its annual Martin Luther King Jr. Dinner. SCLC/LA’s executive director hosted a half-empty table because staffers for local elected officials (who happened to be our director’s friends) were unclear as to whether they would be in violation of the ethics regulations if they attended.

These two episodes reawakened what has disturbed me about the ethics-in-politics debate.

For the past two years, I have paid close attention to the many discussions about ethics in politics or the unethical conduct of politicians. I tracked the selection of the Bradley ethics commission, its break from Mayor Tom Bradley in the name of independence, its selection of staff, its series of topical reports and finally Proposition H--the ethics-in-government City Charter amendment.

With the passage of Proposition H in June came the appointment of five ethics commissioners and then an ethics czar. (The post is still vacant, since Walter Zelman decided not to take the position after the City Council cut the salary for the job.)

I remain puzzled about what really has been accomplished. Have we created a climate for better conduct or have we made for more confusion, thus heightening the frustration and unattractiveness of public service?

As one who has spent the past 50 years studying, teaching and preaching in the field of ethics, and having served as a consultant to various ecumenical bodies on the subject, I am deeply concerned about how ethics has taken on the image of micromanaging the daily affairs of public officials.

Frankly, it distresses me that ethics has been reduced to how many, if any, Laker tickets can be received as a gift, or whether or not a lobbyist can treat a council member to lunch rather than dinner at the lobbyist’s home (God forbid that the dinner is catered).

Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos (way of life) and is generally defined as the study of good and bad, right and wrong in human conflict. Ethics seeks to answer: What values are most worthwhile? Why is one act better than another? What ends should we seek?

Ethics has as much to do with justice, equity, parity, equality and fairness as it does with who contributes what to whom. The virtue of honesty is tantamount to good government, but finally it is insufficient as a sole criterion, for it is possible to have elected officials conform to the letter of the law, satisfying only the moral minimum, while crime skyrockets, homelessness abounds, illiteracy spreads, sexual assault increases, ethnic strife worsens and unemployment climbs.

The quality of life of the city is an important concern for ethics--it is a moral issue. Indeed, these are the kinds of issues of which ethics is also made. Good government is not realized, the public trust is not upheld and public service is not promoted as long as ethics is relegated to individual conduct rather than the common good. Integrity and justice must be integrated in a sensible way, then ethics will become meaningful in politics.

I certainly hope that we quickly get beyond what amounts to a truncated version of ethics so that we as a city can really work toward ethics in its fullest sense.