California

Yucks All Over:Sifting Through the Whitman/Allred/Diaz/Brown Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Is anyone doing or saying the right thing for the right reasons in the current controversy in California over Meg Whitman’s housekeeper? I think not. Let’s look at the main participants, and avert your eyes. It ain’t pretty:

Gloria Allred: Emerging out of nowhere to manufacture a campaign controversy that may sink conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s chance of beating liberal Democrat golden oldie Jerry Brown, feminist advocate Allred is exploiting a long-time illegal immigrant for political purposes (Allred’s support for Brown goes back decades), torpedoing the campaign of a woman trying to be the state’s first female governor. Continue reading →

The Bell Salary Scandal and the Victims’ Breach of Duty

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

In most respects, this months horror story about the incredibly corrupt officials of Bell, California doesn’t require any ethics commentary. The verdict is obvious. Robert Rizzo, Bell’s city manager, was collecting an $800,000 a year salary to run a dirt-poor town of  40,000 residents. Part-time city council members took home almost $100,000 annually, mostly by paying themselves to serve on municipal boards and commissions. Rizzo stood to collect a $600,000-a-year pension, and police chief Randy Adams, who was paid more than most big city police chiefs, had arranged for a $411,300-a-year pension. The city officials of Bell were predators, using their positions to steal money from the cities citizens. To pay for all the rich salaries and pensions, Bell’s crooked officials passed unconscionable property taxes, levied on a city population that averaged income less than $25,000 per capita . Even Charlie Rangel wouldn’t argue that this is politics as usual.

Nevertheless, this is a republic, and citizens, even citizens of small towns, have an obligation to pay attention to what their elected officials are doing. Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Month: Judge Vaughn Walker

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

His opinion declaring the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in California unconstitutional is here.

The opinion really begins on page 110. Opponents of the opinion are calling it “judicial activism,” “overturning the will of the people,” and “ruling by fiat.” Don’t buy it. The judge logically, fairly and appropriately explains why withholding the basic right of marriage from same-sex couples is a violation of essential values and American principles of ethics and law. Forget about the pundits and the spin: read what Judge Walker wrote.

“Genetic Surveillance” and Law Enforcement Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The “Grim Sleeper” serial killer was caught because California authorities found a partial DNA match with an individual in its database. That meant that the killer was probably related to the owner of that DNA, and indeed he was. We see this approach on the various “C.S.I” shows, but in real life using family DNA to identify a criminal is relatively rare, because only two states, Colorado and California, permit a  “familial search,” the use of DNA samples taken from convicted criminals to track down relatives who may themselves have committed a crime.

Why only two? The science is reliable, and a familial search can narrow the pool of suspects to the point where solving a crime becomes inevitable. Nevertheless, civil libertarians argue that the technique raises privacy concerns. Michael Risher, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, told the New York Times there was the possibility of innocent people being harassed in the pursuit of a crime. “It has the potential to invade the privacy of a lot of people,” he said. Continue reading →

California’s Confused Welfare Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The Los Angeles Times has been running a series of stories detailing how many California welfare recipients have been using their state-issued welfare debit cards (which take money directly out of state coffers) at casino ATM’s. The millions of dollars in taxpayer money dispensed to eager, if poor, gamblers produced predictable outrage, and the state responded by blocking use of the cards at over 200 ATM’s and revising the pledge signed by welfare recipients to require them to only use the assistance to “meet the basic subsistence needs” of their families.

The outrage is misplaced, and the remedial measures are symbolic at best. Continue reading →