Integrity

As parliamentarians, we usually see ourselves as the keeper of the rules. We often meticulously push that role to the extreme, but if it were not for parliamentarians, there would be little respect for the rules. While some would say the devil is in the details, the parliamentarian knows that the long established precedents of procedure are straight and true. The more they are followed the better the meeting will be, the more fair the proceedings, and the more stable and effective the organization. Rules of order are reliable.

There is a higher moral order than just strict adherence to the rules. I am no philosopher, but I think we will agree that personal integrity takes precedence over just about everything in a parliamentarian’s moral hierarchy. Albert Camus once said “Integrity has no need of rules.” Putting rules into practice is one thing; placing integrity over that practice is another.

To be trustworthy, one must first have integrity. The word integrity comes from the Latin meaning not touched.  The word integer has the same root, but means whole.  A person with integrity is untainted, untarnished, unhurt.  From this, we can see that integrity means sound, fresh, whole, entire.  One who has these quailities is therefore pure and honest.  The parliamentarian with integrity is one who is reliable and dependable -- one in whom confidence and faith can be placed by all who rely or depend on his advice.

H. L. Mencken observed: “It is mutual trust more than mutual interest that holds human association together.” Once, a new parliamentarian for a legislative body sought out the guidance and advice of several predecessors. Instead of a lecture on calendars, committees, and points of order, their foremost advice was to always maintain the trust of the members. They knew that the loss of trust can be more severe than mis-interpretation of the rules, because the ability to associate and deliberate collapses once any suspicion is cast upon the rule keepers.

Leo Durocher, the famous baseball manager, once said “I never questioned the integrity of an umpire. His eyesight, yes, but never his integrity.” Likewise, the assembly may question the advice given by a parliamentarian or the ruling made by the chair based on that advice, but it is only through trust that the assembly will observe and follow the prescribed course. We tend to view the presiding officer as our client rather than the overall organization, but we cannot adequately serve the chair if the membership does not trust us. That trust has to go beyond a slim majority. It must prevail throughout the assembly. Thus, we serve the chair best by maintaining a high ethical standard.

Several of the standards listed in the NAP Code of Ethics address this. Parliamentarians should “assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the profession” (#1.2) and “promote a spirit of cooperation, ethical practice, and fair dealing with colleagues” (#1.4). They should conduct themselves “so as to reflect credit on the profession and inspire confidence, respect, and trust of clients and the public” (#1.5).

Ethics, integrity, and trust do matter. Without them, we cannot be the guardians of democratic society.