Under the title, “Feedback”, we are launching this new section for our website, in which we shall publish messages we deem to be concerned with public ethics and deserving discussion. In each case we first ask the author’s permission to use her or his message, then develop a response. That may lead to a counter from the original author, or also contributions from members or the general public. We shall edit these messages for website use if necessary, but shall not revise or alter the substance of the point being made or the arguments being given. Each segment will be dated.  No messages involving endorsement of candidates or of specific policy measures will be accepted (see “About NCPE” concerning our mission).

Feedback Table of Contents

1. “Candidate’s Pledge” might conflict with the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct
- Justice Becker's Letter
- Dr. Walton's response - Special conditions must apply to judges which do not apply to those upholding other professional ethics codes and principles.
- State of Nevada Code of Employee Conduct for the Judiciary

2. Argument on revising our political system to a more direct form of representation.
September 27, 2006 - Mr. Daniel Rosen
September 27, 2006 - Dr. Walton's response, raising at least one apparent difficulty

 

1. After mailing our “Candidate’s Pledge” containing our understanding of the Principles of Public Ethics, we received the following letter from Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy A. Becker. The issues she raises are important enough to receive wider public discussion, so we asked if we might have her permission to publish her letter and Dr. Walton’s reply.  Both of those are published below; the square bracket contains an editorial insertion not found in the original reply to Justice Becker.

Justice Becker’s letter:

I have enclosed a signed copy of your document, Principles of Public Ethics. I would like to point out, however, that items V and VI conflict with the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct to the extent that they ask judges to make decisions based on factors other than the law or explain judicial decisions and internal conferences.  The judiciary has to make decisions on a case-by-case basis and are not allowed under the Canons to disclose deliberations with the public.  Of course, a judge’s administrative decisions do not conflict with items V and VI.

I’ve signed the pledge with the assumption that you are aware of that conflict, but I did want to bring it to your attention.

/s/ Nancy A. Becker

GO TO Contents or GO TO Top of Feedback Page

 

Dr. Walton’s response:

Dear Justice Becker;

Thank you for your letter and for signing and returning our “Candidate’s Pledge” containing the seven principles.

Having taught judicial ethics over the decades, of course I’m aware that special conditions must apply to judges which do not apply to those upholding other professional ethics codes and principles.

To respond, I would offer two remarks: first, I think that the publishing of a unanimous, majority or dissenting opinion from the Court or from any judge would constitute giving reasons to the public at the time of the decision, thereby satisfying Principle V.  The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct would not conflict with our understanding of these principles. ‘Giving reasons’ should not be taken to mean “using factors other than the law”.

Second, the Canon forbidding disclosure of deliberations seems to square with the exception we state in Principle VI, that “only when the public agrees through established laws and institutions to accept secrecy or sealed records can they be closed”.  Of course the Canon is established law and is institutionalized.

However, it may well be that NCPE’s best understanding [of our country’s public ethics principles] is not yet adequate, in which case we should revise our wording.  Would it be agreeable to you if, in addition to posting on our website your name as supporting the seven principles, that we also publish the relevant portion of your letter and this response (as well as any response you might choose to make in the future) ?  Doing so would help all of us understand what is at stake in seeking to understand our founding principles, including their complexity.  It would also serve as an example of dialogue and open, public reasoning which you and we consider to be necessary to the rule of law.

If you should have time, please respond to this letter.  But of course the press of duties might make that impossible.  We will not use your letter without your permission.

Thank you for your helpful letter!

Respectfully,

Dr. Craig Walton, President, NCPE, and Emeritus Professor of Ethics & Policy Studies, UNLV
- send e-mail to cwalton@unlv.edu

GO TO Contents or GO TO Top of Feedback Page

Sept. 27, 2006:  Mr. Daniel Rosen sends this argument on behalf of revising (or returning?) our political system to a more direct form of representation, by use of electronic methods. Though his message includes reference to his own candidacy, we accepted this as an item for Feedback because it focuses on the idea of representatives voting according to their constituents’ electronically-communicated choices. Mr. Rosen’s idea is presented below.  It is followed by a brief response by Dr. Walton. Further clarifications by Mr. Rosen or further responses by others will be considered for inclusion.

In order to end political corruption and make government more responsive to the people, I have designed Nevada Vote Direct as a system for citizen control of our representative in Washington. At Nevada Vote Direct, registered voters in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District may vote not only on the issues of the day, but also on specific legislation pending in Congress. They will not be obliged to vote, and may vote only on the issues and bills that concern them. The system provides secure electronic voting in secret ballots conducted continuously on the Internet or by telephone, every day all day. Unlike the electronic voting system used by our government in our periodic elections, the open-source voting software at Nevada Vote Direct is available for inspection by anybody at any time to verify that it is secure, honest, and fair. But this is not just another opinion poll, for I have pledged that, when elected, I will vote in Congress EXACTLY as directed by the majority of voters in my congressional district. No lobbyists will even attempt to buy my vote, knowing that my vote belongs to the majority of voters in my district - no ifs, ands or buts.

We may have a different view of the founding principles of our republic. In several of your stated “Principles of Public Ethics,” it is apparent that you have a relatively loose interpretation of the idea of political representation that is built into our system of government. You leave considerable room for the representative to exercise her own judgment, and be “independent.” This is admittedly the more conventional interpretation.
But it seems to me that the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution held a wide spectrum of opinion with regard to the real nature of representation. There were those who believed that representatives in government were there to convey the will of the people quite strictly and without revision or refinement.

Unfortunately, this difference of viewpoint may be academic at this point. I believe we all know that our representatives in Washington consult neither the will of the people, nor their own conscience, when they vote on legislation in Congress. They are ruled by the big-money special interests who fund their campaigns – and in some cases their lavish lifestyles.

Moreover, political corruption has become the impassible obstacle on the way to solving every other problem that faces the nation. We cannot wait to reform the psychology of our representatives along more honest and ethical lines. The corruption of government is leading to immediate catastrophes of unimaginable proportions and on multiple fronts.
We cannot fuss with the Gordion Knot of corruption for a moment longer. As history demonstrates over the course of centuries, it cannot be untied with reform from within the system, or by urgings from without. Instead, we must, like Alexander with his sword, cut through it once and for all. We need to cut off corruption at its source.

This is what Nevada Vote Direct is designed to do. If special interests want the vote from Nevada's Second District after I am elected, they will need to arrange for ALL of the registered voters in our district to enjoy that junket in the Bahamas.

So, then, I'd like you to know that I support what you are doing wholeheartedly, and I sign the pledge in hopes that our common interest and motivation may outweigh any possible contradiction with what I am doing at Nevada Vote Direct.

GO TO Contents or GO TO Top of Feedback Page

 

On Sept. 27, Dr. Walton wrote the following response, raising at least one apparent difficulty.

Dear Mr. Rosen,

….As to your essay about how Nevada Vote Direct works, it is an interesting notion, and as you and I and many others believe, it would be a positive change if elected  representatives voted in accord with their constituents' views. 

The problems, of course, are 2:   first, though you seem to consider NCPE’s understanding of our country’s political principles to be a “loose” take on our part, the Bill of Rights provides that some actions cannot be legislated by majority rule.  There is real danger in what the founding fathers called "tyranny of the majority".  You, however, seem to set that danger aside if your principle is that majority rule is always the right way to make laws and policies.  The seven principles we spelled out refer to the Bill of Rights in order to make it clear (we hope) that the rights of persons , at least some of them, cannot be over-ridden , even by a large and strong majority.
  
    The second problem is that there can be cases where a clear and strong majority both
agrees with an idea, worded in one way, and also rejects the idea, worded another way,  so that discerning what people really want can sometimes be very hard to do.  That does not invalidate Nevada Vote Direct, but it puts huge weight on you to word things perfectly, or somehow allow for dialogue before settling on the wording of the options available. 

….Maybe we could use part of your email on our website?  That is, could I quote from it, to show your thinking, and quote from my response, to show one response?  We want to add a section for discussions, and this would be a good candidate for one area of discussion all of us could find valuable!

best,

GO TO Contents or GO TO Top of Feedback Page