by Peggy Kerns
I was fortunate to be part of an NCSL team that traveled to Cape Town, South Africa to conduct a Legislative Leaders Workshop in February. Our audience included members of parliament from the Western Cape and women legislators from five other provinces, Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal, Limpopo, North West and the Northern Cape. Also attending were Texas Senator Leticia Van de Putte, Wisconsin Senator Spencer Coggs and NCSL staff members Bruce Feustel and Maggie Lamborn.
As director of NCSL’s Center for Ethics in Government, I was primarily responsible for a session about ethical challenges in legislatures. I’ve done this type of seminar many times with legislators and legislative staff in the states. It’s always fun—and often fascinating. I wasn’t disappointed this time.
In the first part of the session, members of South African group discussed how they defined ethics. They had no trouble agreeing on a definition: “Ethics is standards, a system of values, the way you conduct yourself.” We then built upon this definition. With the help of Senators Van de Putte and Coggs, and recorder Feustel, we led the group through a brainstorming session about values that are important to them in their official capacity, asking, “What values do you bring to your job?”
The participants called out any value that popped into their head. We ended up with 20 words – not all were ethical values, but they reflected words that individuals felt were important. Now the task was to narrow the list down to five values. People argued their points: Is commitment the same as dedication? Is conviction similar to courage? Can I be compassionate and not be tolerant? Is power an ethical value? Someone said, “visbyt,” an Afrikaner word that means perseverance or someone who can get through anything. Finally, one person completed the list by saying, “Be superman.”
The group voted and what emerged was a list of their top five ethical values: integrity, honesty, respect, tolerance and commitment.
But the exercise wasn’t over. These are nice words, but what do they mean? Again, the group was energized as people tried to convince others of their definitions. The final list is remarkable for the openness and frankness that the group exhibited. Following is the unedited results of the discussion that resulted in the group’s code of ethics.
Integrity: Adherence to ethical norms (both your own and those of a group); upholding your values; activity beyond reproach.
Honesty: Truthful; trustworthy; within yourself; perception of truth at the time; openness and not hiding anything.
Respect: A high regard for other people and yourself; treating people with compassion/passion; acknowledge a person as a human being; honorable; treating others the way you want to be treated; acknowledge the rights and talents of others in your actions; qualities earned, not demanded; deeper appreciation; linked to own values and beliefs.
Tolerance:Always taking others into consideration; visbyt; to agree not to agree; respect others; patience; ability to counter; consideration of others; withstand everything – going on no matter the conditions; perseverance; mutual respect; to endure.
Commitment: Dedicated; passion; give all your efforts; focused; believe; people who overcome odds; unrelenting dedication (to the realization of goals); go all out; loyalty to a person or cause; firm adherence to principles.
The exercise ran so long, that I never got to the discussion of specific ethical dilemmas that they may have. But the time was well-spent. Hopefully, the exercise helped these public officials, who represent different cultural and geographic areas within South Africa, understand that they share many ethical values.
Bruce Feustel also shared his workshop experiences in a Thicket post entitled, Who’s the Boss?
Comments