Proposed revisions are necessary and sensible | Letters | Dec. 2


December 1, 2011 · 4:22 PM

Unlike many of the complainants about the revisions, I actually read the whole document and I am in support of the revisions.

I served on the Ethics Committee of the United Church of Christ for a few years and took ethics training during that time, so I come to this with some frame of reference.

I appreciate the intent to clarify the process, and the “rules of the road” regarding conflicts of interest for all public servants – hired, elected or volunteer. It brings to the forefront the need to treat all perceived ethics violations and possible “respondents” in similar fashion.

One wishes that an Ethics Code would not have to be spelled out in such specificity, but given the number of accusations of “corruption” that have been made and lawsuits threatened, these additional clarifications proposed by Mr. Scales do seem absolutely necessary.

My Social Work Code of Ethics is very specific and I think it serves both professional social workers and the public it serves well.

Gloria Sayler MSS, Bainbridge Island

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

So keep your comments:

  • Civil
  • Smart
  • On-topic
  • Free of profanity

We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and “drive-by” commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.