Public officials are held to higher standards

OPINION

BY LEN CABRERA

We’ve become so tribal that people seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between the standards of appropriate behavior for public officials who have a responsibility to serve everyone in their districts and private citizens who have no role in setting government policies or providing government services. Too many people behave as if the only determining factor in whether an action is good or bad is whether the offender aligns with their political beliefs.

That is not a viable way to sustain a civilized society.

Alachua Chronicle does not investigate private individuals unless they are under criminal investigation; we may name them if they appear in public records, speak in public meetings, or are part of a social media conversation that makes the news, but we do not research their personal details, work history, etc., to make them the story. When a private citizen’s public statements or actions become news, the story is about those statements or actions. Criminal histories are public records but are only relevant for private individuals if they are the subject of a criminal investigation. A private citizen’s speeding tickets or previous arrests are not relevant to a public comment at a school board meeting, for example, because those things do not impact their right to speak to governmental officials about their concerns.

Public officials, whether elected or appointed, are a different story. Their thoughts and actions affect us all. If they exhibit unprofessional behavior, violate the ethical standards that explicitly apply to their position, or publicly express thoughts that suggest they cannot be impartial in their public jobs, that becomes news and is relevant to their ability to continue in that position. They are held to a higher standard because, unlike private citizens, they work for us. They chose to enter the public sphere, and we, as their employers, can demand that they behave in a professional manner.

Constitutional rights belong to “we the people” and deal with how the government treats us. Rights such as the First Amendment do not apply to employer-employee relationships in the sense that employees can say anything they want without consequences. Employers (both private and public) can have strict rules for dress codes, appearance, behavior, and even speech, both in the workplace and on public forums.

Alachua County’s “Standards of Conduct” make it clear: “The ethical obligations of public service employees go beyond mere legal obligations, and demand from each employee a greater sensitivity to the potential ramifications of the employee’s conduct, as well as to the public’s perception of such conduct” (emphasis added).

That document goes on to say, “[Alachua County Board of County Commissioners] employees are expected to demonstrate integrity and impartiality… These employees must avoid actions on or off duty that could compromise that essential trust and confidence” (emphasis added).

Alachua County Public Schools has “Standards of Ethical Conduct” for elected board members, including, “Board members value the worth and dignity of every person” (emphasis added) and “strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct… maintaining the respect and confidence of their colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community.”

This concept also applies to service members, who fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are many rules to limit their constitutional rights, both on and off duty, including social media posts. Articles like 88 (“Contempt Toward Officials”) and 89 (“Disrespect Toward Superior Commissioned Officer”) have parallels with elected officials who make derogatory comments about their constituents, who are also their employers.

Derogatory comments about others are fine for private citizens (subject to slander and libel laws) but are inappropriate for elected officials or employees in positions of public trust. For public servants, such comments may reveal flaws in the person’s temperament and suggest an inability to impartially execute the duties of the office. When that person is a local elected official who directly oversees our children’s education or has the power to apply different penalties to different citizens, depending on their beliefs, that responsibility is elevated. State and federal officials affect us with their policies, but local officials can directly affect our access to government services by intimidating citizens into being silent or, for example, withdrawing their children from the school district.

Imagine a postal worker who refuses to deliver mail to Republican houses or a trash collector who refuses to pick up trash at Democrat homes. Public officials are supposed to serve all of their constituents, not just the ones who think like them or vote for them, and private individuals have the right to demand that they conform to these standards without fear of retaliation.