Essay 2

Question 3 Ethical standards of behaviour are deemed to be a basic requirement for the

public sector. Nevertheless, there are numerous instances of public sector

officers operating without the level of professionalism or even corruptly in

the pursuit of their various tasks. Critically explore the relevance of national

and international Codes of Conduct as well as the Principles of Public Life in

enforcing ethics and integrity amongst public officers. Illustrate you answer

with relevant examples.

 Ethics refers to principles used to evaluate behaviour as right or wrong used to set

standards which prescribe what to do to ensure that institutions and the people they are made

up off, meet reasonable and solidly based standards. [ CITATION Amu09 \l 1033 ]. Richard A

Chapman, writing about ethic in the public service stated it is the practical application of

moral standards in government. [ CITATION Cha \l 1033 ]

A Code of Conduct refers to “a set of rules about how to behave and do business with

others” [ CITATION Cam20 \l 1033 ]. Transparency International further defines a code of

conduct is a "statement of principles and values that establishes a set of expectations and

standards for how [a] … government body, … or individual will behave, including minimal

levels of compliance and disciplinary actions for … its staff..." [ CITATION Tra09 \l 1033 ].

There are several benefits to using Code of Conduct within the public service. Firstly,

they create a tool against which the behaviour of persons serving the public can be measured

particularly integrity, honesty, impartiality, and objectivity and limits the pressure which can

be placed by supervisors, political figures, etc to act in a manner which is conflicting to the

code. Secondly Codes of Conduct can also clarify areas of ambiguity as it can be used as

guides on how to address ethical issues as they usually outline standards for expected of

behaviour. Finally, they are used as integrity management framework by providing clear

definitions and can outline procedures and processes for enforcement. [CITATION Tra00 \l

1033 ]

Codes of conduct within the public service also ensures that the public is served fairly

while providing staff and administration the guidelines for maintaining integrity thus

cultivating a sense of trust that the service is working with their best interests in mind. They

also provide standards of professionalism to advise public servants of what is expect of them

and inform the public of what to expect. [ CITATION The20 \l 1033 ]

 Codes of conduct in public service is not limited to national levels. Internationally, in

1996 the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the International Code of Conduct

for Public Officials as part of their drive to act against corruption. After this occurrence it

should be noted that various committees within the UN introduced codes of conduct specific

to their varying purposes. Member states were recommended to use it to develop their own

guidelines. [ CITATION Uni95 \l 1033 ]

The Seven Principles of Public Life or the Nolan Principles are applicable all persons

employed within the public service including those appointed to work in the various arms to

Service (protective, civil, local, judicial, etc., as well as those elected or appointed to public

office whether on local, national, and even international levels. The Committee also stated

that all persons serving the public are both its servants and its public resource stewards.

[ CITATION Com14 \l 1033 ]

The first principle is that of Selflessness. It is expected that persons serving the public

should act only in the interest of the public.

The second principle is that of Integrity which requires persons serving the public to

avoid being placed under obligation to anyone or organization which may try to influence

their work unduly and inappropriately. IT also requires that actions and decisions are not to

be taken for personal benefits (financial or other material benefits) be it for self, family, or

friends and that all interests and relationships must be declared and resolve.

The third principle is Objectivity which states that persons serving the public must be

impartial, fair, evidence-based and without bias when acting and taking decisions.

The fourth principle is Accountability. Persons serving the public must submit to the

necessary scrutiny to ensure that they are held accountable to the public for the decisions and

actions taken.
 The fifth principle is Openness which requires persons serving the public to act and take

decisions openly and transparently without withhold information from the public except

when there are clear, lawful reasons for it.

The sixth principle is pure Honesty. IT simply requires persons serving the public to be

truthful in their service.

Finally, the seventh principle is Leadership. IT requires that persons serving the public

office exhibit the principles outlined above in their behaviour through actively living,

promoting, and supporting the principles and to be willing to challenge misconduct wherever

it occurs.

It is widely accepted that codes of conduct, national and international, can be summarized

broadly as guiding rules for behaviour in public office, but the question now is the relevance

of these codes. With the ongoing fight against corruption across the globe and the perception

that public officers make up the top three most corrupt institutions in the world [ CITATION

Tra17 \l 1033 ] it can be said that codes of conduct are irrelevant.

However, it should be noted that rules and regulations are not unable to stand on their

own to combat corruption in the public service. To ensure that codes of conduct are relevant

institutions need to ensure the codes are not only on paper but, through training, staff is aware

of what is expected in their day-to-day operations. personal values and morals should also

align with that of the institution thus making it easier for the rules outlined in the code of

conduct to be integrated. [ CITATION UNO18 \l 1033 ]

Take for examples of codes of conduct for Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Jamaica.

An overview of their codes will raise show many similarities. However, it can also be

observed that they are only rules and seem to have no measures to protect against misconduct

outlined in the codes of conduct.

 As such, it is essential the public service codes of conduct also provide measures for

accountability and enforcement of the rules set out therein. With reference to the examples

above, a review of the code of conduct only leaves the impression that if there are

consequences to failing to meet the standards, they are unclear if they exist at all. For

Trinidad and Tobago, the consequences are outlined in various documents and authorities but

to gather the information would require making queries at the human resource unit of the

relevant institution or at the Service Commission. The rules, consequences and rewards are

not in a central, easily accessible location for persons serving the public to easily access and

review.

Another factor which makes it sems as though codes of conduct are irrelevant is the

absence of clear procedures for reporting on breaches of the code and as protective measures

for those willing to report. While all three countries stated above have systems in place

facilitate disciplinary action for breaches, the fear of victimisation and reprisals together with

the history of report either not being taken seriously, swept under a carpet due to relationship

between parties being reported to and those being reported on

The Final challenge to code of conduct being relevant in the public sector, is the

investigation process. When a report of misconduct is made, initiation of investigations into

the reported misconduct can either begin immediately or may not be considered for many

years. As such, for those reporting the matter, they are stuck looking at the issue continue

with nothing being done to address it. For the person being reported on, there has been

instances where investigations begun years after the misconduct and takes years to complete

leaving the officer in stuck in interim consequences until the matter is closed.

In summary, codes of conduct in the public service nationally and internationally are only

irrelevant in the absence of without clearly stated reporting procedures, timely investigation,

and enforcement.