Ethics— Education or enforcement

By Walter C. Johnson
Director of Parks & Recreation
Cary Park District

In 1977, I participated in the development of the IPRA's Code of Ethics which was subsequently approved by the IPRA Board of Directors in May of that year. We viewed the code of ethics as an educational tool representing a statement by the association to assist its member professionals in determining the propriety of conduct in relationship to clients, colleagues, other professionals and the public. Following that significant event was the major task of looking into the problems of legal liability and the protection of members who might be called upon to make decisions regarding enforcement of the code of ethics. Also, at that time, our efforts concentrated on developing the responsibility for administering the code of ethics including the procedure for reviewing alleged violations or grievances, the conduct of hearings, the degree of censure, if any, and the matter of rights of appeal. These administrative procedures and policies were adopted by the IPRA board at their meeting in June 1978. The ethics committee has for all practical purposes, remained dormant since that time. Presently, the major question before our association is what directions should the ethics committee, and more importantly the membership take in making our code of ethics serve its purpose effectively?

Walter C. Johnson, received his Bachelor's Degree in 1958 and his Master's Degree in 1961 in Park and Recreation Administration from the University of Illinois. During, the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Recreation for the Mount Prospect Park District, Executive Director of the Glencoe Park-Recreation District and Naperville Park District and is presently Director of Parks and Recreation, Cary Park District. He has been a member of the State Professional Society for 27 years, been on the board of directors in many capacities for 16 of those years, including, once as Treasurer and twice as Secretary, and has chaired nearly every major committee of the organization, most recently the Ethics Committee.

A code of ethics must be a sound document with real substance and real meaning. In our case, I think we have adopted a well constructed, relevant code and then proceeded to ignore it. The neglect may arise largely from an assumption on the part of many of our members that once a code of conduct is placed on record, members will routinely refer to it and adhere to its regulations. Yet reason and experience amply show that the mere adoption of formal standards of ethics does not ensure that members of an association will act in accordance with those standards.

The only way to keep a code of ethics from gathering cobwebs is to use it on a vigorous and continuing basis. A code that is actively used is seldom a static one. Frequent modifications of its content are necessary as new issues and attitudes emerge within our profession.

A code must not only be kept up to date, it must be promoted. If an association wishes to promote its ethical standards it really only has two options, enforcement and persuasion. On the whole, enforcement has received considerably more attention from the association than has persuasion.

Enforcement involves the issuance of regulations and the evoking of sanctions when the regulations are violated. It is a matter of fact that relatively few associations are able to maintain rigid discipline, even when they have a lengthy code with elaborate sanctions. An association may wrap the knuckles or revoke the membership of an offender, but the risk of infringement upon a member's civil liberties is so great that most associations exercise discipline in only the severest and most open and shut cases.

Since many United States Supreme Court rulings and the recent developments in Section 1983, Title 42 of the United States Code, new uncertainties have arisen concerning the extent to which an association can legally exercise control over its members through a code of ethics and sanctions. I believe that it is clear that there are pitfalls for our association in any attempt to rely on severe and rigorously imposed sanctions to obtain compliance with our adopted code of ethics.

Since neither the adoption of a code of ethics, nor the imposition of sanctions can, in themselves, guarantee that the members will act ethically, many associations in recent years have suggested that their organizations stop trying to handle ethical issues at all. Yet in view of the strong public demand for greater ethical responsibility in business and the professions, it is doubtful that our association would want to take this drastic step.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 34 January/February 1982

More lasting results can often be obtained by the alternate approach of persuasion, a situation in which a person complies because he or she is convinced that acquiescence is inherently good. Persuasion is achieved largely through education—not simply the giving of information, but the raising of questions, the focus on critical problems, and the suggestions of acceptable responses to ethical dilemmas.

Persuasion understood in this way, is not to be confused with indoctrination. It would be reprehensible for an organization to attempt to keep its members docile or conformist under the guise of ethics. Education in ethics is education in personal and social responsibility and seeks to heighten the members' awareness rather than to dull it.

The IPRA Code of Ethics should be printed in its annual directory, and its state magazine and in any other publication that would go out to the entire membership. The usefulness of drawing the attention of members to the text of the code at least three times a year is obvious. The committee has in the past considered issuing the code of ethics in a separate publication possibly multicolored on parchment paper suitable for framing. Although this practice has the advantage of singling out the code for attention, members may be lulled into complacency once the code is thus enshrined. Elegantly displayed, it is likely to become little more than a part of the decor of an office.

Another way to educate would be the practice of publishing selected opinions issued by an ethics committee in other leading national associations. There could be many parallels drawn from violations of ethical codes in the fields of real estate, education, counseling, etc.

Conventions afford still another occasion for our association to carry on education in ethics. Recent IPRA conferences have been fortunate to have outstanding and lively discussions on ethical issues by Mr. Roland Calhoun, Mr. Don Bresnan and Mr. Webbs Norman.

I believe that our association should conduct a strong education program in ethics as the results will be worth the extra effort and cost involved. Persons who are knowledgeable about the best ethical standards of their profession are likely to work together more productively and happily, and to serve the public more satisfactorily.

Effective education in ethics requires not only adequate financing but careful organization, continuing publicity and—most important of all—the strong support of our leadership in the IPRA.

Both education in ethics and the envoking of sanctions can be utilized to maximize the results from a code of ethics. Yet I believe our Illinois Park and Recreation Association is better suited to persuasion than to enforcement. If we wish to implement our concern for ethics we will do well to think in terms of education, above all else.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 35 January/February 1982