ICMA members are increasingly engaging in conversations with colleagues and ICMA staff about the intersection of the ICMA Code of Ethics and their strong desire to engage in issues they are passionate about.

As part of the inaugural ICMA Athenian Project, the four of us huddled to wrestle with this issue. What is the role of a manager in our representative democracy? How can a manager be a part of our democracy while modeling the civility and non-partisanship that is at the core of our profession? In short, what if I want to march?

This profession was built on the foundation of political neutrality for appointed local government managers. Tenet 7 of the ICMA Code of Ethics calls on all members working for a local government to refrain from all political activity that might undermine confidence in professional administration. The importance of being politically neutral isn’t limited to the person at the very top, appointed to lead the organization. The innovation, engagement, and professional input from staff to improve the community will only be successful if at the end of the day, the residents have true confidence that those efforts are motivated by a desire to serve the public’s interest.

The Code also recognizes the role of staff to engage with elected officials on the policies that will guide the future. Tenet 5 of the Code requires us to submit policy proposals to elected officials, supported by facts and professional advice, so that they may set the community’s goals.

Always core to the profession, this obligation to stay out of politics but help to shape policy now takes place in a highly polarized environment. Issues and causes are increasingly associated with one political party or another. Social media has obliterated the firewall that may have existed between a member’s personal and professional views. Think what a five-minute perusal of your Twitter account might reveal to the public about your personal values. We find it increasingly difficult to have any kind of conversation—let alone a civilized one—with others about certain causes. Members who share support for a particular issue in a public manner may find themselves at odds with the position of their elected body and may forever be associated with a particular party or platform.

So, what is a fully engaged member with strong values to do if he or she wants to march? We identified four areas where our public and private views might intersect and potentially create difficulty: in operational matters, in the profession, our personal values, and relationships with elected officials.

Operational

The most complex ethical dilemmas are those that require us to choose not between right and wrong, but from equally right but competing values. Consider the ethical dilemmas that a manager may face when his or her personal perspective about how to best respond to a divisive community incident is at odds with their professional responsibilities. The manager may find him or herself mentally aligned with a group protesting the city’s actions while trying to maintain loyalty to the local government. The best response from a legal perspective may be that the city and its staff acted in a manner consistent with rules, regulations, and policies. But is that the only appropriate answer? Is it ever appropriate for a community to say, “We were wrong”? If so, how can the manager work with elected officials (and legal counsel) to make that happen?

Personal

A strength of our profession is the diversity of backgrounds, life experience, and core values that members bring to public service. As a result, some who see what they believe to be injustice in our society are called to speak up. The guideline on personal advocacy of issues under Tenet 7 acknowledges that “Members share with their fellow citizens the right and responsibility to voice their opinion on public issues. Members may advocate for issues of personal interest only when doing so does not conflict with the performance of their official duties.” We must personally consider the level of risk that we are willing to take in giving public voice to our values. We need to think carefully about balancing our interest in advocating or supporting an issue with our ability to serve in our role. Will speaking up have an impact on our role as a convener, impartial representative, or objective source of information?

Professional

Exactly how committed are members to the ICMA Code of Ethics? What does that commitment look like? How do we measure it? Is there a continuum of commitment or are you either “all in” or not? These are not unreasonable questions to ask. The Code is after all not a list of rules to follow, but a statement of values that we use to guide our conduct in some truly complex and difficult professional decisions. We should recognize that members approach the Code with differing perspectives. There are those who take the most conservative of approaches in applying the Code while others adopt a more laissez faire approach. For some, any kind of political speech—including marching for a cause—undermines the profession. Others would rather quit than give up their right to be heard.

Relationships with Elected Officials

There have always been situations when it falls to us as managers to implement policies, approved by the elected officials, that we do not support. But what happens when such policies conflict with our core values? Is it ethical to remain on board to implement the policy? Or should we leave? On the flip side, what is our obligation to recommend policies that align with our values—even if those policies may be unpopular with elected officials or the public? Being proactive and giving voice to all sides of an issue is a core responsibility of a professional manager. In a period in our democracy that seems marked by incivility, even simply providing both sides of an issue can feel risky. Where we live and work—and how closely our personal values match those of the residents we serve—will increasingly guide our choice of jobs.

In order to help members navigate these intersections, we developed a decision-making framework (see Figure 1). When contemplating a decision, the framework guides you in assessing how the decision aligns with your personal and professional values, as well as the community’s. A series of questions are posed to identify the risk associated with the proposed action. A key component of the framework is the opportunity to identify specific values and validate conclusions. This can be done through self-reflection and by consulting with colleagues and ICMA staff.

The most important questions we must ask are about the impact of the decision on our ability to do our job, the future of our career, and on the reputation of our communities. To continue this discussion and debate, we are in the process of creating a short and interactive training curriculum including the framework for members to use.

If we know what we value, if we understand our community’s values, and if we have reasoned conversations about our role in this democracy, we should be well-positioned to navigation this intersection. We can use the framework to guide our decision-making. And, as always, we will rely on each other for advice and support.

 

KATE P. FITZPATRICK, ICMA-CM, is town manager, Needham, Massachusetts (kfitzpatrick@ needhamma.gov).

 

 

 

WILLIAM (BILL) J. FRASER, ICMA-CM, is city manager, Montpelier, Vermont (wfraser@ montpelier-vt.org).

 

 

 

OPAL D. MAULDIN-JONES, ICMA-CM, is city manager, Lancaster, Texas (ojones@lancaster-tx.com).

 

 

 

MARTHA PEREGO, ICMA-CM, is director of member services and ethics, ICMA, Washington, D.C. (mperego@icma.org).