An Ethical Guru

By BONNIE ANGELO. Barbara Jordan

Q. Your new post as Governor Ann Richards' special counsel on ethics is unique in this country, probably the world. What's the purpose of the job?

A. I am the ethics guru. I question the Governor's proposed appointees about matters that are ethically sensitive, help raise their sensitivity quotient. It's the things that are not blatant that get you into trouble. This is not just an initial push and then you forget about it, but a constant companion for the duration.

Q. Have you done any good yet?

A. In screening appointments, I counseled against the appointment of one individual, who did not get it. I've spoken at training sessions for appointees. I presented a hypothetical case and asked the audience how they would respond. I presented the case of an appointee who needs to attend a meeting and is offered the use of a corporate aircraft by a person interested in a contract with his agency. Do you compromise yourself and accept this apparently innocent invitation? Do you issue a disclaimer that it will not affect any future contracts? My advice: Buy your own ticket.

Q. Sounds as if John Sununu and others could use some of your advice in Washington.

A. There are any number of people in Washington who strain credulity to state the rationale to justify their actions. But Sununu was too greedy; he should not have become the frequent flyer he did. If you are going to be ethically insensitive, at least be insensitive in moderation.

Q. What about the Congressmen and their wives flying on a military plane to Paris for the air show -- all their expenses taxpayer-paid?

A. It is not right; it is not correct; it should not occur. These things may not be illegal, but it is so important for a public servant to sort out what is legal from what is ethical. I tell appointees, "You must not engage in any fine-line drawing." Ed Meese as Attorney General did that many times. It is not enough for the Attorney General to say, "I have not violated the law."

Q. How did your job come into being?

A. Governor Richards made ethics a primary focus of her campaign, because there have been so many allegations of lobbyists' influence peddling, vote buying, bribery, that sort of thing. In 1989 we were treated to the spectacle of a lobbyist going onto the floor of the Texas Senate and handing out $10,000 checks. There was some legislation in which he was interested, so he just said, "We have a gift for you." It was that blatant.

Q. But don't most people think, cynically, that politics is a crooked business?

A. I am very disheartened by the public perception of politicians not having the public welfare at heart because I absolutely believe politics is an honorable profession. I wish more people would see politicians as public servants, because that's what they are.

Q. Yet in almost every session of Congress some ethical scandal arises. How do you explain that?

A. When ethical problems arise, the base is usually some act of greed or self- interest or money. I believe only a very small percentage of people who are in public office are guilty of wrongdoing, of abusing their public trust. But then I look at those people in public office who run against government -- and that, I think, is one reason why the role of the politician is so diminished in the eyes of the public.

I really was incensed when the President, just before last November's elections, started running against Washington, against Congress, against the very policies he had been so integral in developing. Then what can you expect in terms of public perception?

Q. Would the proposed term limitation for Congress raise political standards?

A. This whole business of term limitations is a wrongheaded move. That's not the way you correct wrongdoing. What you're doing is muting the people's voice for some short-term political benefit.

Q. What would be your first change?

A. The greatest change, the No. 1 change, has to be in the way we fund political campaigns. It is the money that has become an obscenity, has been so corrupting. I would like to see some limitation on how much money you can pour into a political contest. But there will not be a change until there is enough of a public outcry demanding it.

Q. It is argued that the Keating Five were only doing what any Senator does on behalf of large contributors. Would you agree?

A. Until we get genuine campaign finance reform we will have public officials like the Keating Five doing constituency service for wealthy constituents. But as long as there is the appearance that you are selling your office, the public is going to have a negative reaction.

I do not think these Senators sold their office or their soul, but what they did was to get on the most-favored congressional list of this Charles Keating, a man who had a lot of money. In order to curry favor with this wealthy constituent, you do things that will be helpful to him in his business. So unless we change the system of campaign finance, we're going to have incidents like the Keating Five occur time and time again.

Q. But campaigning by television requires huge amounts of money. Can any politician escape the money trap now?

A. I doubt it. I would like for one to try, however. I'd like for somebody to get out there and see if they could do it. People want politicians who are honest and credible, and if they could just know that you're going to do a bang-up job for them, they'll help you, they'll vote for you.

But we've got so far away from the politicians' selling themselves personally. We just let money and sound bites and 30-second spots do it -- and that's not the way the republic is supposed to be run.

Q. Are we scrutinizing politicians so harshly, demanding that they give up so much for public office, that we're keeping many good men and women out of politics?

A. We're keeping some out, but when you get into the arena, you know what the arena requires. You know it's going to be tough, you're going to be asked some very hard questions, your privacy is going to be stripped away. But when you offer yourself for office, you have to expect that. You must, or not seek office.

My strong feeling is that the best people, those who really have what it takes to be good in the office, can be talked into making the effort, because the primary pull on those people must be that they can serve the public in a good way.

Q. Could it be that our ethical standards are more stringent now than in the past?

A. No. I think there are certain enduring ethical standards, enduring values that don't change with the times. My definition of the ethical public servant is one who acts in the public interest, who is truthful, credible, honest, and who is able to turn from greed and selfhood to think in terms of others.

Q. What about ethics in other callings, the sorry mess in the savings and loan associations, the scandals on Wall Street and among TV evangelists?

A. I believe those who hold public office are held to a higher ethical standard than those in other professions. That is as it should be. However, other professions do have codes of ethics. There is almost unanimity on certain basic values, which are enduring, whether you are a journalist or in the business world.

The only thing that differs between other professions and politics is that there is the requirement for the politician not to be selfish. In the other professions, people act in their own interest, and if they go too far in their own interest, they will run afoul of the law.

Q. But neither a code of ethics nor the law kept those savings and loan institutions honest.

A. The 1980s are characterized as the decade of greed, Greed with a capital G. Many of the savings and loans' problems were the outgrowth of extraordinary greed and chicanery by persons in the S&L industry. I call the S&L debacle a policy wreck. The people involved in it were motivated by greed and ambition, and we also had public officials, regulators, who were inattentive to their public post. Because of that inattention, we the taxpayers are going to have to pay that extraordinary amount.

Q. At the University of Texas you teach a course called "Political Values and Ethics" at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. How do you instill a strong sense of ethics in young people interested in public service?

A. It is not easy. You don't teach people ethics. I try to sensitize my students to be able to identify an ethical morass they are about to step into . before they step into it. I tell them, don't expect to get rich -- the public does not pay its servants a great deal of money. Go do this job because you want the government to run well and you think you can help it run well. And I say, if ever you decide you want to get rich, then get out of government, because if you don't, I'll visit you in jail. That gets their attention!

Q. How broad is your definition of ethics?

A. We can't talk about ethics without talking about openness and inclusiveness. We, as the people of the United States of America, with all our rhetoric and promises, still have the problem of color.

With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we really thought we were moving to finally get this issue of race behind us. Then we saw during the late '80s a resurfacing of racism. We saw more in the Supreme Court decisions of 1989, and the culmination was that veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1990. It seemed as if a little bit of bigotry was O.K. But if ever you tolerate a little bit, you have let the door come ajar. We saw that in the campaign of '88, with Willie Horton as an issue, and in the Jesse Helms race last fall. The civil rights constituency seems to have been weakened, and that is very, very troubling. I attribute it to the inattention the question received during the Reagan years.

What is needed in this country is a leader -- a President of the U.S. -- who speaks of all citizens without equivocation. It doesn't cost a dime; you've got the pulpit -- just get out there and use it!

Q. You won a national reputation for rectitude as a member of the Nixon impeachment panel in your first term in Congress. Yet scarcely 10 years after that national crisis, another group in the White House was secretly subverting the law in the Iran-contra affair.

A. That was a surprise to me. I thought the lessons of Watergate were lasting lessons and we wouldn't see that again. But an atmosphere was generated around Ronald Reagan and his presidency. Here was a President who was fairly disengaged. And when you have that at the top, that means that those who are underneath feel free to do whatever they want to do in developing their own agendas and acting them out. I think we saw that in Poindexter and North.

The bottom line is, yes, we learned the lesson of Watergate. It stuck for about 10 years, but then you have to relearn it. We ought to have a continuing sort of seminar for people who are in charge of government, because the lessons get old and need to be revived.

Q. You have called loyalty an attribute of morality. In both Watergate and the Iran-contra affair, loyalty to the President was at the heart of the wrongdoing.

A. Loyalty is a very important trait, one of those principles that should adhere to your core. But how far does loyalty go? Are you loyal to the point of supporting your superior in an illegality?

In my opinion, that becomes misplaced loyalty, and you ought to do something about it. If you see wrongdoing, loyalty requires that you go to your superior, notwithstanding that it may not be beneficial, and say that what you see being done is wrong and should be stopped. You should try to correct it in-house. But if you can't change it inside, then you get out and try to change it from outside.

Q. In the context of ethical leadership, whom, past or present, do you admire?

A. Bill Moyers is my hero. I'd like to see him as President.