Ched MacQuigg: They Won't Answer the Question

You have two candidates standing before you. One is willing to be held accountable only to the law, the lowest acceptable standard of conduct. The other is willing to be held accountable, honestly accountable, to a widely recognized, accepted and respected code of ethics. The difference is significant. Power spent ethically is spent in the public interest. Power spend “legally” is spend according to special interests and self interest. The first ethical use of power is to ensure that it cannot be abused; ever. The first ethical use of power is to provide honest accountability to an unequivocal standard.

Why is it unreasonable to ask the question which will distinguish the one candidate from the other? To what unequivocal standard and by what inescapable mechanism will you be held accountable?

The idea of holding powerful people accountable for their conduct is not new. It has been thought of, and the people to whom we entrusted our power, decided not to provide it. They decided not to provide for honest accountability; even to the law. Or does anyone still believe that really powerful people can be held accountable, even against their will?

There are men and women who will accept the public trust, but who will not answer the question. By their own choice, powerful people are not asked inconvenient questions. One of the immediate accouterments of power is that you don’t have to answer inconvenient questions. There is only one reason not to answer the question, and that is that the truth is worse than the lie.

This isn’t about what unequivocal standards are. We all know what that means. Human beings choose for themselves the standard to which they will hold themselves accountable. If that standard does not meet the needs of voters, voters have a right to know.

This isn’t about the meaning of inescapable accountability, which will be defined by stakeholders, and will meet their needs. It will be the best effort of dedicated and capable individuals whose work is not only transparent; it will be illuminated. It isn’t about can it be done? It is about will it be done?

If the people to whom we entrust our power were inclined to protect us from its abuse, we would not need that protection now. Corruption is exists only because it can exist. If there were a conscientious and deliberate and transparent effort to make corruption and incompetence impossible to hide, there would be an end to (almost every conceivable) corruption.

Accountability is fatal to the abuse of power. The first intelligent abuse of power is to eliminate accountability for abusing power.

Is it so unreasonable to demand than every candidate for public trust tells voters about the standard to which they will be held accountable? It is only because the question is asked by the powerless that it will not be answered, ever.

There is only one way to compel a powerful person to stand and deliver; overwhelming public pressure.

If the newspapers asked the question, and asked it, and asked it; it would get answered. But they won’t. They won’t even ask once. And they write editorials about how important it is that voters demand higher ethical standards for public servants.

There is a head on this pimple. The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education has refused to be held accountable to the same ethical standard of conduct as they impose upon students. They sat in silence rather than answer the question. As role models, their position is categorically indefensible. As stewards of a half a billion tax dollars, their position is categorically indefensible. Clearly they have an obligation to hold themselves accountable to a higher standard; their position is indefensible. Yet powerful people are able to defend indefensible positions simply by ensuring that they never actually have to defend them.

The board ignores me when I ask the question. They ignore me even in diametric opposition to their ethical expectation for children. The can ignore me because they are powerful and I am not.

Certainly I am not powerful by myself. The only hope seems to lie in the last refuge of stakeholders betrayed; large crowds on street corners. I don’t know where the tipping point is, but I do know that if enough people show up a public forum, sooner or later they will have to answer the question. Sooner or later the people who enjoy our trust will respond by holding themselves accountable to a higher standard of conduct; at least the same standard of conduct that applies to children.

Large crowds on street corners are hard to come by; especially if the newspapers won’t tell the story. And they won’t. It is up to the internet.

Someone else first observed that, there is no stopping an idea whose time has come. If honest accountability to an unequivocal standard seems to you like an idea whose time has come, I would very much appreciate it if you shared this letter with as many people as you can. I would appreciate it if you would attend how ever many public forums it takes to make our position clear. It is the voters who will determine the acceptable standard of conduct for school board members and senior administrators. And we will not allow that decision to be made without our appropriate involvement.

Thank you for your time and attention.

My name is Ched MacQuigg

You can contact me at [email protected]

Technorati Tags: Blogs, budget, corruption, Democrats, Education, Elections, New Mexico, Politics, reform, Republicans

Comments

[Scott]

Take out the reference to ABQ School BoardAPS Administration and this would be perfect to describe the race (and the problems the voter faces understanding the positions of each candidate)between Heather and Patricia.

[Gideon]

You could apply this throughout our society. It's madness. It's as if being an democratically elected official no longer is a sufficient reminder for our public officials and politicians of their inherent duties to do more than pander and pontificate.

Also, the reporting does seem to have something to do with it. It's amazing the kind of fluff they throw around inbetween the weather and then call it "News."

[ched macquigg]

A grassroots movement is a real possibility.

The newspapers won't do it, but bloggers could. The ultimate goal is to have every candidate in the November election answer the question on the record. Or they could refuse to answer the question, on the record.

To what standard will you be held honestly accountable?

[ched macquigg]

It wouldn't take much. A place where candidates could post and, a network of people encouraging people to encourage candidates to post. at their earliest convenience.