Op Ed:
Painful Pay-Off
Can Guarantee
Ethical Attention in Oregon

Strong Consequences Needed For Destroyed Trust

Art: pitt.edu

(SALEM) - Human nature is full of quirks and “surprises” even from mature politicians chosen by full voter trust. Painfully-damaging political behavior by some so trusted, but proven too easily led astray, had become a cultural characteristic in the Oregon Legislature. Oregonians now demand deep changes in the Ethics Commission system overseeing such situations. “Painful behavior demands painful consequence” is an essential principle of democracy. The Federalist Papers provide discussion in detail and depth as Founders felt their way to make sure democracy worked. Our society provides the judicial system, already operating on “painful consequence” as principle; already applying “driving engines” of jail or a remedial-care institution. We long ago learned “consequences must follow fast” after the “found guilty” demanded by Constitutional definition, when made by co-citizens or even colleagues. The Founders felt the “consequences” principle so essential they provided measures to separate and protect the necessary governing mechanism: A wall between three essential components; isolating “Judicial” for careful, secure operation. Centuries earlier taught us that when co-citizens decide, the “painful consequence” MUST follow closely to make remedial connection sure and secure. Thus others will “see with own eyes” and modify their own behaviors. Ongoing observations surely show far too many, today, understand --and openly resent-- continuing failure to enforce this essential principle. Oregon sees solid demonstration of that necessity NOW: First with public loss of Legislative trust via ethical collapse involving an irresponsible few. Damaging loss of essential confidence has forced a fully effective remedy, responding to unprecedented public-opinion presented with vigor and, sometimes, venom. With legislative agreement for stronger show-of-force by many more Oregon state troopers --on highways half-covered by force reductions while population has doubled and traffic multiplied-- that vigor and venom was on full display here recently: Salem-News readers displayed broad distrust of our entire governance system, by what they told us about this ostensibly simple systematic remedy. The upshot is to mirror manifold muscular manipulation of the system best now corrected at the primary place-to-start: What our Ethics Commission can DO to correct and control further threatening damage via response to Oregon’s needs, now. Bipartisan political acceptance of the demonstrated need for more Troopers is the rational choice; made by our own representatives. We chose-and-elected them. We should now stand by that choice, with our strong every-cooperation in this very reasonable, rational effort to make good on our Constitutional guarantee of security. The mere presence of troopers is proven deterrence for carelessness and irresponsible behaviors. Few fail to “be careful” when State Police cars whiz by with lights flashing. Felons fear trained professionals determined to end predation and ready for determined pursuit. Force is demanded now vs drug-traffic; desperate people engaged in damaging actions; and those few who feel “personal liberties” override their own responsibilities to others. Wracking tragedies, becoming widespread, spotlight spectacular dangers created as traffic grows inexorably. We don’t need more “irresponsibles” avoiding very reasonable ID-by-licensing to permit rational control. That’s still the only reasonable civil/sorting to avoid endangering our already-eroded American way-of-life; it remains the most effective for any privilege demanding responsible performance to protect others. What is thus provided is easy access to responsible participant when all provision fail --and tragedy arrives. Never forget that many others are watching, ready to “take advantage” in “hit-and-run” situations, when society allows itself to become vulnerable. Some need no further “failures to enforce existing law”, or other encouragements, to avoid common control when they see that “it costs nothing to notch up another private gain” of any kind, at any level. There’s always the ready attitudinal escape-hatch: to “run when cornered”, fully familiar via “hit-and-runs”. Many everyday activities must continue to be licensed by societal choice: to assure responsibility by ready identification. That is the small cost we pay to attain minimum control of privilege by democratic process: “We” control how licensing is imposed. “We” can change it when necessary by proven democratic means -- our elected representatives shaping our laws. Still, a few --poised to “seize the moment” will always do what they can get away with -- when UN-watched. “Painful experience” in institutions, schools, clubs, camps, shopping malls --even churches!!-- has taught us “painful behavior” never ends until “the behaviorist” is suddenly and surely “pained” personally and irrefutably. Need one point to once-sacred and respected church situations, now “in the news”, as very painful-proof? “Early-intervention might well have been best possible church-funds investment”, one respected church leader has summarized. That’s code for consequences rapidly and competently applied. Assets-lost to bankruptcies and damage-suits broadly occurring could have continued churchly efforts. Need one page out in detail the news-provided by recent reexamination of the rumored Nixon-pardon incident --the ONLY time when a President “resigned”-- rather than be Constitutionally-“tried” for what was undoubtedly a truly “painful experience” for this nation? NOW we learn there may well have been “the pardon deal” so drastically denied down all these years. What other level-of-pain for a democratic society compares with damage when an ELECTED representative is seduced by very-small personal gain? OR morally minimized by comfortable conformity with whatever official action can be taken for private-profit? Each electee is chosen on “trust-sought”. That’s understood by every voter, hammered home by canny “campaign contribution”-supplied ads. We all know “It takes two to make a deal”, even when done via that new-wrinkle: “Transactional lobbying”. At whatever site, in or out-of-state. “Painful consequence” is a proven principle for any decisive compliance where ANY “painful behavior” occurs. It is surely demanded in any perverted and damaged working culture affected; especially when justified only by “I made an error”; OR, unbelievably, “It was the lobbyist who did it.” Proven-working demonstrations of this principle exist in many management areas, found from drug regulation on through business practice and currency regulation; into insurance and Wall Street; even in our educational system, enamored of “standard-test” situations. No civil society has ever maintained itself without such “system”, based on reasonable, rational forethought, with final authority exerted somehow. IF such rational means for management is failing, then we need to remedy “the system”; and run again a stronger democratic process to control and confine via practical, rapid “painful consequence”. Society must protect itself against those who will otherwise sabotage and seduce for private purposes; and to “feather their own nests” with anything they can filch or acquire via stealth or “hit and run”. Those few may howl in feigned horror and full cry when even simple personal or professional ID is sought sensibly and flowing directly from representative governing. For multiple situations that must mean “police” at multiple levels --forced by perpetrators at work widely. But that’s “the ticket to civilized life” these days, driven by well-demonstrated necessity. Precedent has been set again recently in television program-content/control. The Federal Communications Commission now applies a ten-times multiplier to previous current fines for any objectionable exposures offending viewers of television events: Moving from $35,000-per-incident to $350,000-per-incident --and PER STATION, not network-only. The FCC, this time at least, “knew what to do --and when, too” to cite one authoritative reviewer. Can we expect anything less of the newly-armed and armored Oregon Ethics Commission? “No longer dollar-dependent”, we are promised, and “to-be-equipped with effective new rules”. “Prior to strong enforcement”, we are told, of all of “these new rules”. BUT where’s the pain for provoking still-further very painful voter-trust violations? When it is entirely obvious that it has occurred NOT “by error”, or NOT “by mistake” of the lobbyist OR the legislator? Demonstrate a complete understanding of these realities, by providing “plentiful pain” for proven repeated behaviors: First-offense fine: $15,000 - current-level times ten. Second-and-FINAL fine: $25,000, carrying a clause ending any right to continuance in Oregon politics, and including a ban of activity as lobbyist for ten years. Why not NOW demand a surely-earned end to ANY Oregon political career so clouded and clobbered? Why not slam-shut that door to lucrative later employment, now so open and seductive to some --and so easily achieved at session-end? Full notice of this principled action will certainly and surely guarantee close attention for all-concerned; and put fully and irrevocably on-notice any one who may still ponder about the rewards for pandering. That action can provide positive protection for the most sacredly valuable of any democratic-choice situation: Conferring full trust-and-confidence by citizen vote for any representative. Violation of that essential democratic principle fully deserves “practical and painful consequence for painful behavior”. Editor’s Note: Every substantive statement made in our Op Eds is supported by documentation available on request. Quotes are sometimes summarized for clarity of same-sense from several speakers, with originals available: a professional protocol widely used. For details seek “What, Why and How Re Op Ed Generation” (5/24/06) via our Search-bar.