When Knowing Ethics Too Well is an Ethics Violation
The governor’s office is facing a lawsuit over disclosure of the many subpoenas received by our illustrious government. Pay-to-play scams, hired truck, and hiring scams are rampant in the government of Illinois. So what does the Executive Investigator General target for investigation? People who take the annual ethics test too fast because they know the material already (or have an IQ above 70).
The news has made the rounds in Illinois that people who took the ethics test too fast were declared to be non-compliant. It appears that I am one of the people who knows the ethics law too well and has a sound moral compass.
My response was less than kind. The reason for this is as follows:
1) I don’t take kindly to being accused of an apparent crime.
2) I really don’t take kindly to being declared guilty of an apparent crime.
3) It’s especially obnoxious that I’ve been declared guilty of an apparent crime without any investigation, hearing, trial, consultation, or any of those other things that general constitute a just government.
4) My wife is a week and a half overdue. While this is obviously more an issue for her than it is for me, we’re both frayed and this letter turned my mood from sour to downright shitty.
I was in a hurry to get it written before I left the office so there are some typos at the end. The other interesting thing I noticed is that although I said such a violation is apparently a misdemeanor, I’m not so sure that’s its the case after a closer look at the statute. Article 50 stipulates the penalties. The training is required in Section 5-10. The penalty section doesn’t actually assign a penalty for section 5-10 so it is entirely possible (this is the point where a lawyer can come in and clarify) that not complying with the Ethics training requirement cannot be punished at all.
I’ve decided to make this public because it’s a public record anyway. That and I’m sure some enterprising C-list blogger will think he’s terribly clever for filing a FOIA and then declaring me to be unethical to interject that into my campaign for the Unit 4 school board.
At first, I thought I was believed I was fine because I seem to remember going to the bathroom in the middle of the training. Apparently it was before or after I did the web-based training. The training was relatively simple and everyone I know could have taken the test without looking at the accompanying material and aced it. Do we really need web-based classes to say “Thou Shalt Not Steal”? I realize some enterprising lawyer probably got some political connected corrupt crony off because no one ever told him stealing was bad, but that’s not the world I live in.
The training was virtually the same as last year and the material is intentionally written to be easy to understand. Besides being familiar with the material because I took the same training before, I’ve been through the ethics process twice (on the filing end, not the receiving end) so I’m familiar with reporting, the duty to report and whistleblower protections. I also come from a family of lawyers which makes me somewhat of a rule monger. We won’t get into the fact that I read very fast.
My response is harsh, yes. However, I don’t take kindly to being declared a criminal without so much as a hearing. I called the University Ethics Office and was told the decision was unappealable. On top of that, I don’t appreciate Jimenez suggesting that we committed additional crimes by developing a cheat sheet. I’m not sure what kind of people Jimenez hangs out with, but the people I associate with don’t need a cheat sheet for a test that didn’t even require looking at the material to pass. For the record, I read the material online and the packet they sent with the letter because I am required to.
I revised the form they sent for me to sign so that it didn’t admit guilt or even recognize a crime or offense has occurred and sent it back in. I would imagine that I will see no further problems. I still do hope the OEIG might find something better to do with their time.
=================================================
One does not need a bathroom guide to tell if the bathroom design is ok or not. Similarly to buy bathroom vanities and other supplies, one does not need to have the experience of buying. However a bathroom guide can come in handy when you are about to get bathroom furniture and will help you in choosing the material. Not only that, but it also has some really useful tips on window washer and making the most out of shower curtains.
=================================================
Guilty till proven innocent (same illegal standard used by the IRS). Just another way the gov’t rountinely violates our Constitutional rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging demonstrators and banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov’t.
Support indy media.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov’t and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Comment by 5th of November | January 6, 2007
First, I don’t really see much connection between JCB’s post and the first comment, but I will let that go.
Second, to your question John, and keep in mind that while I am not an attorney, I am going to school to be one. I have also had to fire people for ethics stuff, so I know a little here. Cheating on the ethics test (while just idiotic), is NOT a crime, but can be an offense in your job that leads to termination and a black spot on your record. I would personally file suit against your employer for “convicting” you of this offense without trial, the opportunity to defend yourself, and really without even telling you before they told you it was over. A very nice legal letter should convince them that not only are you ethical enough not to cheat on that test, but also concerned enough about your reputation not to.
Comment by Smokey | January 6, 2007