Board should protect itself in ethics cases

The most critical aspect of any ethics requirement is not its standards or how well they are applied, but is the governing body’s handling of a case no matter who it involves and whatever risk that might pose to friendships, associations and alliances.

It’s a highly uncomfortable circumstance when people who work alongside each other are called upon to decide whether one of their number has stepped out of line.

The influences of friendships, alliances, politics and personalities are difficult to avoid in a situation where everyone knows everyone else, regardless of how well the rules are written. It’s also because of the small town nature of the community that deciding a breach-of-ethics case is one of the more certain ways to make an enemy for life.

Still, that doesn’t mean the Ocean Pines Association shouldn’t have tough ethics requirements written into the bylaws, as not everyone can resist the urge to meddle in staff affairs, or in the worst case, do something truly untoward.

This isn’t an accusation that this sort of thing is happening now or has happened on the current board, but instead recognizes that it has happened in the past and will probably happen again because that’s the way people are.

The purpose of ethics statutes, or resolutions, isn’t just to protect the public from unscrupulous or unhelpful behavior by people in authority, but also to shield those in authority from repercussions that might result from the actions of others.

To accomplish that, however, the board of directors needs to remove itself from the equation by passing the responsibility for ethics rules enforcement to a completely separate body.

No matter how the ethics bylaws are written or revamped, establishing this independent review is the only way the board can protect itself from the personally uncomfortable and politically fraught business of considering the public future of one of its own.