OTHER VIEWS: Ethics Law not the Grinch Portrayed by News Media

al.com
By Joey Kennedy -- The Birmingham News
Updated: Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 9:47 AM

By Bryan Taylor

All I want for Christmas is factual, unbiased news.

All year long, we in Alabama have suffered one news report after another in which sensationalism has triumphed over fact.

Take the media coverage of Alabama's immigration law, for example. Contrary to widespread reports, it doesn't criminalize simply giving an undocumented immigrant a ride to church. Just like the identical provision in federal law, it outlaws hiding an illegal alien in the trunk of your car and driving him from Tijuana to Birmingham.

Now, a hullabaloo has erupted over Alabama's ethics law.

An irresponsible news report absurdly suggested that under the new ethics law, teachers would go to jail simply for receiving reasonable Christmas gifts from grateful students. Needless to say, the story went viral.

It was blindly repeated by media outlets across the state, and before long, it was even picked up by National Public Radio (news, with a shot of liberal smugness). NPR wouldn't dare miss an opportunity to paint Alabama Republicans as a bunch of mean-spirited grinches out to steal Christmas from teachers.

It was just too delicious to pass up, even if it was patently untrue.

Never mind the facts. Perception is reality. The news report led many teachers and parents to believe that Republican lawmakers had gone off the deep end, passing a law to ban sensible holiday gifts to teachers.

In fact, the law in question passed with overwhelming bipartisan support (92-7 in the House; 31-2 in the Senate) more than a year ago. It doesn't ban reasonable Christmas gifts at all. And it doesn't even mention teachers.

The bill everyone is talking about is actually the ethics reform law I sponsored, which prohibits all government officials and employees from taking things like free Iron Bowl tickets, golf outings, hunting trips, lavish meals and other substantial gifts offered to them just because they happen to hold a government post.

Nothing in the law is intended to ban reasonable gifts from students to teachers at Christmas time. But no public servant -- anyone who is paid by the taxpayers -- should be allowed to profit from public office or employment.

So here is what the law actually says: (1) Lobbyists (and the people who hire them) shall not provide anything of value to public officials or public employees and (2) "No public official or public employee shall use his or her official position for personal gain," except as specifically authorized by law.

There is a provision expressly allowing public employees to accept "de minimis" gifts. According to the Alabama Ethics Commission, that means any gift for which it would be "unreasonable or unpractical" to hold a public servant legally accountable, "considering its value and the frequency with which it is provided."

The "de minimis" provision was intended to give the Ethics Commission the discretion to exempt things like reasonable, once-a-year Christmas presents which are unlikely to buy influence, compromise a public servant's impartiality or result in perceptions of special advantage or impropriety. So, what is an appropriate "de minimis" gift?

In Massachusetts, teachers are allowed to accept gifts of less than $50 as long as they report any gifts of more than $10. The Texas Educator Code of Ethics says teachers shouldn't take any gift that might "impair professional judgment" in the classroom.

Under federal ethics rules, all federal employees, including teachers who work at public schools on military bases, are subject to a "$20 de minimis gift" limit. This federal limit also applies to soldiers, including every member of the Alabama National Guard, like me.

Gift-taking by government personnel has been strictly regulated across America for a very long time. Why? Because government officials and employees hold unique positions of authority and public trust.

The new ethics law strikes an appropriate balance by giving the Ethics Commission the ability to investigate abuses along with the discretion to apply common sense to particular situations.

So, if the law doesn't actually ban reasonable Christmas gifts to teachers, what happened?

Well, looking at events in reverse chronological order gives us a clue.

The Ethics Commission issued a ruling concluding that certain gifts like "hams, turkeys, or gift cards" don't qualify as acceptable "de minimis" gifts, while saying things like books, scarves and fruit baskets do. However well-intended, this part of the ruling created understandable confusion for school administrators, teachers and parents. (I have asked the Ethics Commission to reconsider its ruling, or the Legislature may address it in the next session).

The commission's ruling came in response to questions posed by the Alabama Association of School Boards, prompted by school leaders who were being pressed by teachers and parents, who were sparked to anger by e-mails from Alabama Education Association operatives accusing Republicans of "attacking educators again" with a law that allegedly targeted Christmas gifts to teachers.

And that, dear friends, is how, right before Christmas, we ended up with a ridiculous news story saying teachers might go to jail because of an ethics bill that prohibits public servants from using their positions for personal gain.

The truth is, when applied with common sense, Alabama's new ethics law helps restore public trust in government.

Maybe this year, Santa will bring us a bill to help restore public trust in the media.

State Sen. Bryan Taylor, a first-term lawmaker, is chairman of the Alabama Senate Committee on Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics and Elections. Email: bryan@bryantaylor.us

http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-c...w_not_the.html