the public office is a public trust essay

Essay on Public Office Is A Public Trust

Students are often asked to write an essay on Public Office Is A Public Trust in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Public Office Is A Public Trust

Public office is a public trust.

Public office is a responsibility given by the people to those elected or appointed to serve them. This trust means officials must act honestly, fairly, and in the best interest of the community. They should use their power for the benefit of all, not for personal gain. Transparency and accountability are crucial to maintaining this trust. When public officials uphold this trust, they help build a better society where everyone can thrive. It is essential for all in public office to remember that they serve the people and must always act with integrity.

250 Words Essay on Public Office Is A Public Trust

Public office is a responsibility given to individuals to serve the community. It is like a promise made by those in power to work for the benefit of everyone. This trust is crucial because it involves making decisions that affect many people’s lives.

Responsibility to the People

Those in public office have a duty to act in the best interests of the public. This means making decisions that benefit the community as a whole, rather than serving personal interests. It is important for them to be honest, fair, and transparent in their actions.

Accountability and Integrity

Public officials must be accountable for their actions. They should be open to scrutiny and willing to explain their decisions to the public. Integrity is key in maintaining trust. It means being truthful, ethical, and consistent in behavior.

Using Resources Wisely

Public officials are entrusted with resources belonging to the public. It is their responsibility to use these resources wisely and efficiently for the benefit of society. This includes managing finances, infrastructure, and other assets in a responsible manner.

Building Trust and Confidence

By upholding the principle that public office is a public trust, officials can build trust and confidence among the people they serve. This trust is essential for a functioning democracy and for the well-being of society as a whole.

In conclusion, public office is a public trust that comes with great responsibility. Those in power must always remember that they are there to serve the public and act in the best interests of the community. By honoring this trust, they can contribute to a better and more just society.

500 Words Essay on Public Office Is A Public Trust

Public office is a responsibility given to individuals to serve the community. It is like a promise made to the people to work for their benefit and well-being. This trust is crucial because those in public office make decisions that affect everyone in society. It is a position of authority that should be used wisely and ethically.

Responsibility to Serve

When someone holds a public office, they are entrusted with the duty to serve the public. This means that their actions and decisions should always prioritize the needs of the people they represent. Whether it is a local council member, a government official, or a community leader, their primary goal should be to work for the betterment of society.

Accountability and Transparency

Public officials are accountable to the people who have entrusted them with their positions. This means that they should be open and transparent about their actions and decisions. Transparency builds trust between the public and those in office. It ensures that the decisions made are in the best interest of the community and not for personal gain.

Integrity and Honesty

Integrity and honesty are essential qualities for anyone holding a public office. It means being truthful, fair, and ethical in all dealings. Public officials should always act with integrity, making decisions that are morally right and just. Honesty builds credibility and trust, which are crucial in maintaining the public’s confidence in their leaders.

Stewardship of Resources

Those in public office are responsible for managing public resources efficiently and effectively. This includes taxpayer money, public facilities, and other assets that belong to the community. Public officials must ensure that these resources are used wisely for the benefit of all citizens. They should avoid wasteful spending and prioritize investments that will improve the lives of the people they serve.

Listening to the People

A crucial aspect of public office is the ability to listen to the concerns and needs of the community. Public officials should be accessible to the public, open to feedback, and willing to engage with citizens. By listening to the people they represent, public officials can make informed decisions that reflect the interests of the community.

Trust is the foundation of any relationship, including the one between public officials and the public. By acting with integrity, being accountable, and prioritizing the needs of the community, public officials can build trust and confidence among the people they serve. Trust is essential for effective governance and a harmonious society.

In conclusion, public office is indeed a public trust. Those who hold positions of authority have a responsibility to serve the community with integrity, honesty, and transparency. By upholding these values and prioritizing the well-being of the public, public officials can fulfill their duty and earn the trust and respect of the people they represent. It is a privilege to serve the public, and this privilege should always be treated with the utmost care and respect.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Rose Flower
• Essay on Russia
• Essay on Save Endangered Animals

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Politicians forget what public trust means – we must remind them

Adjunct Professor, National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Colleen Lewis has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Accountability Round Table.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

There cannot be a more important office or more challenging role than being a member of parliament. This is especially so for government MPs and ministers, including the newly elected Victorian ministry sworn in on Thursday . As former federal Liberal minister Fred Chaney has explained , all persons elected to parliament bring with them values, loyalties and obligations to self, family and other supporters, and their parties, but also obligations to people in their electorate and the state – not to mention personal political ambitions and the pursuit of power. Much of the time, two or more of them will be in conflict.

Cabinet ministers have to add to the mix their loyalty and confidentiality obligations. Chaney observed that most decisions of policy that MPs and cabinet ministers must make involve issues for which there are competing solutions, none perfect, which will affect members of the community differently.

Chaney advised that the guiding principle to resolve conflicts must be what is in the public interest.

Public office is a public trust

The oaths politicians take as MPs and ministers commit them to compliance with the law but give little guidance. Guidance from the law can be found in a principle of law and ethics, which states that public office is a public trust. Regrettably, that principle has been largely forgotten.

Victorian MPs and ministers are covered by two codes of conduct . However, these focus on specific issues of conflicts of interest between their personal financial interests and public duties and roles in parliament and government.

Guidance could be found in the current benchmark for codes, the Commonwealth Standards of Ministerial Ethics , initially published by former prime minister Kevin Rudd. The code begins by stating:

1.1. The ethical standards required of Ministers in Australia’s system of government reflect the fact that, as holders of public office, Ministers are entrusted with considerable privilege and wide discretionary power. 1.2. In recognition that public office is a public trust, therefore, the people of Australia are entitled to expect that, as a matter of principle, Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility and the public interest, as required by these Standards.

While expressly based on the public trust principle, it does not appear to have revived that principle in the consciousness of those in government or the community.

When we entrust people with power over our lives, that power should be exercised in our interests; that obligation must always prevail over the interests of the people given the power. This is what the law recognises as a fiduciary relationship.

It follows that when a minister is making a decision and the common good of the people requires one decision, but his or her personal or political loyalties and future require a different decision, he or she must always give priority to the common good.

An ancient principle fallen into disrepair

This is not a new principle. It goes back to Plato.

About 100 years ago, that proposition that “public office is a public trust” was regularly used in public discussion of government and parliamentarians’ actions. It is not a metaphor: it is a fundamental ethical principle and a principle of the common law of Australia.

Former High Court chief justice Sir Gerard Brennan explained :

It has long been an established legal principle that a member of Parliament holds ‘a fiduciary relation towards the public’ and ‘undertakes and has imposed upon him a public duty and a public trust’. The duties of a public trustee are not identical with the duties of a private trustee but there is an analogous limitation imposed on the conduct of the trustee in both categories. The limitation demands that all decisions and exercises of power be taken in the interests of the beneficiaries and that duty cannot be subordinated to, or qualified by, the interests of the trustee.

Sir Gerard acknowledged that:

… the fiduciary duties of political officers are often impossible to enforce judicially - the motivations for political action are often complex – but that does not negate the fiduciary nature of political duty.

Sir Gerard’s conclusion left little room for doubt about the obligations of public trust:

Power, whether legislative or executive, is reposed in members of the Parliament by the public for exercise in the interests of the public and not primarily for the interests of members or the parties to which they belong. The cry ‘whatever it takes’ is not consistent with the performance of fiduciary duty.

The courts have applied the legal principle in other areas. These include legality of contracts, common law criminal offences and the sentencing of convicted offenders whose offence involved a breach of their public trust obligations.

The courts have also applied the principle when interpreting legislation that gives discretionary statutory powers to ministers. The courts have held that such powers are “conferred as it were upon trusts” . They are to be exercised in the public interest to promote and not defeat or frustrate the objects of the legislation.

Court action can be taken to challenge the exercise of such powers relying upon the legal principle that public office is a public trust. One example is the powers held by planning ministers to intervene in planning applications.

Issue of integrity affects all policy

In the area of open and accountable government our public trustees – both elected and appointed public servants – inevitably have to deal with a conflict of interest arising from their obligation to give priority to the public interest over their personal and political interests. This is an area of policy that affects how all other policy areas are addressed.

Open and accountable government is critical to the operation of our democracy. If provided, it would also result in better government for the whole community, reduce opportunities for corruption of government and significantly help economic growth. In late 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron said :

… the best way to ensure that an economy delivers long-term success, and that success is felt by all of its people, is to have it overseen by political institutions in which everyone can share. Where governments are the servants of the people, not the masters. Where close tabs are kept on the powerful and where the powerful are forced to act in the interests of the whole people, not a narrow clique.

He acknowledged that transparency in government is not easy, that it “brings risks”. The risks are personal for our public trustees. Giving priority to the public interest by strengthening open and accountable government requires moral courage.

Probably the best-known recent failure in the government integrity system in Victoria has been the creation of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission ( IBAC ). If the creators of IBAC had been more aware of their obligations as public trustees, would the outcome have been different?

Would they have dealt with the conflict of interest they faced by including the community in the decision-making process, publishing draft legislation for discussion and involving relevant civil society groups in their deliberations? Instead, they lacked, at every critical stage, the benefit of input from the key stakeholders – the people of Victoria.

How do we all repair government?

The new Labor government made election commitments to strengthen the state’s integrity system. While their proposals , if carried out well, will make some important incremental improvements , much more could have been promised. For example, the government could replace our FOI legislation with the best-practice “Right to Know” approach of Queensland and refer the political funding of parties and candidates to the Joint Electoral Matters Committee for inquiry.

Again, did a failure to properly consider the public trust principle contribute to the shortcomings of what has been promised? If so, that can be easily rectified.

In his victory speech on election night, new Victorian premier spoke in terms that reflected the public trust principle when he identified two key objectives of his new government: serving the people and winning back their trust.

The government can win back people’s trust by demonstrating that it is serious about strengthening Victoria’s integrity system by implementing Australian best practice. There is no better way to serve the people and regain their trust than bringing them into the decision-making process on all integrity-related issues.

To change the culture to one that accepts and gives primacy to the public trust principle, it needs to become an accepted part of public discussion and expectation. Where does responsibility for this lie? The short answer is with us all: members of the community; the teaching professions; governments; parliaments and the media.

Ultimately, however, the buck stops with those who vote every four years. If we want our democracy to work as it should, we cannot afford to disengage from it. And if we continue our disengagement, we must accept ultimate responsibility for the failures of our democratic system.

Is there hope? The rise of these matters as a political issue in Victoria and at the national and international level suggest there is. Australia has made commitments under the UN Convention Against Corruption ( UNCAC ) and through the G20 and the Open Government Partnership .

And as Victor Hugo said:

All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

The public trust principle’s time is here.

Tim Smith QC was one of the authors of this article. He chairs the Accountability Round Table and is a former Supreme Court judge and former commissioner of the Australian Legal Reform Commission and Victorian Legal Reform Commission. More of his speeches and writing on this issue can be seen here .

• Victoria elections 2014
• Accountability
• Daniel Andrews
• Public office
• Public trust
• Integrity in government
• Codes of conduct

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Case Management Specialist

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

In This Section

• About the Office
• Bureaus and Offices
• Biden Administration Ethics Pledge Waivers

Basic Obligation of Public Service

• Government-wide Ethics Laws
• Conflicts and Impartiality
• DOI Ethics Prohibitions (Unique to DOI Employees)
• Ethics in Emergency Situations
• Ethics Pledge Overview
• Use of Your Public Office (Use of Public Position)
• Use of Government Property, Time, and Information
• Outside Work and Activities
• Political Activity
• Seeking Non-Federal Employment
• Restrictions on Post-Government Employment
• Special Government Employees
• Ethics Toolkit for Researchers and Scientists
• Financial Disclosure
• Annual Ethics Training
• Initial Ethics Training
• Training Library
• Widely Attended Gatherings (DI-1958)
• Acceptance of Travel Expenses (DI-2000)
• Outside Work and Activities (DI-7010)
• Requests for Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 201)
• STOCK Act Notification Form

The Foundation For Ethical Behavior Executive Order 12674

Thomas Jefferson enunciated the basic principle of public service: “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” This sentiment has been expressed by numerous others, over time becoming the familiar principle “Public service is a public trust.” To ensure public confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, Executive Order 12674 (as amended) forms the  framework  for  the  ethical  behavior  required  and expected  of  all  Federal  employees.  As  a  condition  of public service, you are expected to adhere to these fundamental principles of ethical behavior:

• Public service is a public trust, requiring you to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.
• You shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.
• You shall not engage in financial transactions using non-public Government information or allow improper use of such information to further any private interest.
• You shall not, except pursuant to such reasonable exceptions as are provided by regulation, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by your agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of your duties.
• You shall make no unauthorized commitments or promise of any kind purported to bind the Government.
• You shall put forth honest effort in the performance of your duties.
• You shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with your official Government duties and responsibilities.
• You shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.
• You shall satisfy in good faith your obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those such as Federal, state, or local taxes that are imposed by law.
• You shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunities for all Americans regardless of race, religion, color, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), parental status, national origin, age, disability, family medical history or genetic information, political affiliation, and military service.
• You shall not use your public office for private gain.
• You shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.
• You shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activity.
• You shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that you are violating the law, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. part 2635), the DOI supplemental ethics regulation (5 C.F.R. part 3501), or Executive Order 12674.

Was this page helpful?

This page was not helpful because the content:

Please provide a comment

Translating Fiduciary Principles Into Public Law

Responding to D. Theodore Rave, Politicians as Fiduciaries , 126 Harv. L. Rev. 671 (2013)

• Ethan J. Leib
• David L. Ponet
• Michael Serota

Response To:

• Politicians as Fiduciaries  by  D. Theodore Rave
• January 2013
• See full issue

It is encouraging to see scholars like D. Theodore Rave take an interest in the project of understanding the fiduciary foundations of public authority. 1 What might be called “fiduciary political theory” can indeed provide us with insight into institutional design within liberal democracies, and Politicians as Fiduciaries is an important addition to the scholarly work in this burgeoning field. 2 Rave breaks new ground by exploring fiduciary political theory’s potential applicability to the field of election law and crystallizes this application through concrete prescriptions directed toward the treatment of partisan gerrymandering cases by our federal courts. But while we are sympathetic to the basic fiduciary rendering of democratic representation at the heart of Rave’s project, we are less sanguine about his rendering of the private fiduciary model into redistricting law. 3 Something gets lost in translation.

The central claim of Politicians as Fiduciaries is that courts should treat “political representatives . . . as fiduciaries, subject to a duty of loyalty, which they breach when they manipulate election laws to their own advantage.” 4 From this idea flows Rave’s proposal that, “[j]ust as the remedy for breach of the duty of loyalty in agency or corporate law is invalidation of the conflicted transaction, the remedy for a law passed in breach of representatives’ duty of loyalty should be [judicial] invalidation of” redistricting plans voted upon by “conflicted” legislators. 5 Together, these propositions evidence Rave’s views that the analogy between private and public fiduciaries is not only tight but also that identical duties and immunities should accrue to corporate and political fiduciaries. 6 He argues not only that the standard of loyalty is the same among private and public fiduciaries but also that the duties should be enforced in the same way by the same institutional actors: judges.

In general terms, there is much to like in Rave’s commitment to the politicians-as-fiduciaries framework. Because public office is a public trust, fiduciary architecture can help orient us in figuring out how political power should be exercised legitimately. As we have previously argued, “seeing political representation as a form of fiduciary representation heightens sensitivity to policing the exercise of discretion, the trust reposed in the representative, and the vulnerabilities created by the relationship.” 7 Part of the appeal of conceiving the political relationship between representative and represented in fiduciary terms is that it regards politics in more realistic and textured ways — as a constellation of power relationships in a web of trust and vulnerability — rather than as a mere social contract no one ever signed. Thinking of legislators as public fiduciaries tells us much about the nature of the relationship between the governed and their governors and it can also provide some normative benchmarks for evaluating the political morality of elected representatives and for designing the institutions that channel and control their conduct.

And yet, although Politicians as Fiduciaries rightly taps fiduciary theory for a fresh look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering, we believe that important aspects of Rave’s execution miss their mark. Rave’s straightforward application of private law fiduciary duties to acts of political representation — in addition to his proposal for judicial enforcement of such duties — overlooks the relational dimensions of the fiduciary principle. Fiduciary law is not unitary in how it identifies relationships and imposes duties — a fact not made clear by Rave’s too-direct transplantation of private law concepts into the redistricting domain. The private law controlling fiduciaries struggles mightily to calibrate the way it enforces the duties it imposes to the three indicia constitutive of the fiduciary relationship: the fiduciary’s discretionary power over the beneficiary’s assets or interests, the trust reposed in the fiduciary, and the beneficiary’s vulnerability. Private law establishes first that the indicia are met and then develops relationship-specific duty applications that make sense within the relevant relational environments. Rave’s analysis would benefit from engaging hard questions about who is really best identified as the public fiduciary, who is the actual beneficiary, and what are the right ways to enforce the constraints of the sui generis fiduciary relationships in the political sphere.

In what follows, we develop two points: Part I elaborates upon why Rave’s neat application of private fiduciary law to public fiduciaries should be messier than it is; and Part II interrogates whether his preferred judicial remedies are appropriately calibrated to generate the trust necessary for public fiduciary relationships to function well.

The private law does not apply fiduciary duties without first making an effort to determine whether the relationship at issue is truly a fiduciary one. Although some categories of relationships are presumptively fiduciary — agent-principal, attorney-client, guardian-ward — whenever a breach of fiduciary duty claim is made, judges first seek to establish the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. And, once a particular relationship has been identified as a fiduciary one, judges do not apply a one-size-fits-all approach: the way in which fiduciary obligations are enforced tends to be calibrated in a manner sensitive to the type of relationship at issue. To wit: although an agent, a trustee, a corporate director, a parent, and a lawyer can all be fiduciaries owing a duty of loyalty to their beneficiaries, that duty is enforced differentially, with varying degrees of strictness, according to the characteristics of the particular relationship at issue. This variance makes sense because, although these fiduciaries all exercise discretionary power over a beneficiary’s assets or interests, the power structures that inhere in business, familial, and legal relations are qualitatively different. 8

Politicians as Fiduciaries overlooks the diversity of the relational landscape to which the fiduciary principle applies. Although Rave is principally drawn to the corporate law version of the fiduciary, in which the director is the fiduciary, he speaks loosely about the legislator as also an agent and a trustee, as if all three are interchangeable because they are all fiduciaries. 9 Throughout most of Politicians as Fiduciaries , however, Rave simply analogizes the legislator to a corporate director and proceeds to a straightforward application of the duty of loyalty as interpreted in the corporate context. But political relationships and corporate relationships are sufficiently different that one should be wary of seamless application from one context to the other.

To apply the duty of loyalty to an elected legislator, one needs a clearer identification of just what sort of fiduciary a political representative is. As we have discussed in previous work, public fiduciaries are sui generis:

[I]n pitching public officeholders as fiduciaries, one must take stock of possible differences between private and public fiduciaries. Translation is one thing — but analogizing dissimilar categories can lead to category mistakes. . . . Not all translations will be smooth, . . . and one must remain mindful that while public fiduciaries are morphologically similar, they are not identical to their private law counterparts and ancestors. 10

Accordingly, to establish that public officials are in a meaningful sense public fiduciaries and what sort of duties should be applied to them (and by whom), it is essential to explore the relationships within the political landscape to better map who is the fiduciary for whom and to what degree.

Politicians as Fiduciaries contains some such analysis, 11 but Rave explores the relational complexity only lightly and presumes rather than clarifies the nature of the power relationship that triggers fiduciary obligation. Yet this relational ambiguity is a core difficulty associated with applying fiduciary political theory to redistricting law. The following example highlights the practical import of this point.

Consider the cross-cutting relational obligations confronting a New York state legislator for District 77, Assemblywoman X . Assemblywoman X is one of 150 legislators in the New York State Assembly. When she takes her seat in the legislature, her oath of office directs her to uphold the constitution of New York and the Constitution of the United States, 12 both of which empower her, among other things, to draw district lines within her state through redistricting plans. For whom does Assemblywoman X serve as a fiduciary? Does Assemblywoman X stand in a fiduciary relationship to District 77’s constituents? To the entire state’s citizenry? To the people of the United States? These questions matter for Rave’s core case, which treats Assemblywoman X ’s participation in drawing District 77’s lines — something she is constitutionally authorized to do by two different sovereign charters — as a breach of a fiduciary obligation, rendering her district lines susceptible to judicial invalidation.

A proper relational analysis reveals that Assemblywoman X is likely a fiduciary for both her district’s constituents and the people of New York. To begin with, Assemblywoman X surely has some power over the whole state — and a fortiori her district — because she helps control the legal and practical interests of the entire state: she makes statewide criminal law and passes the statewide budget. Assemblywoman X must also be trusted by both her constituents and the state’s citizenry; she is fairly difficult to monitor (especially by those with absolutely no say in her election), and she keeps the state vulnerable to her possible exploitation or to pursuit of her own private interests at odds with the public welfare.

Along the same lines, Assemblywoman X may also be a fiduciary for the nation’s citizenry, at least in those instances in which the entire country is subject to her authority. For example, if she were redistricting a “swing state” instead of New York — or voting on a statewide voter identification law that could affect the outcome of the presidential race — her duties might flow outward in light of her work’s national repercussions. The paradox of much elective political representation, then, is precisely that the representative is selected locally and “represents” her home district in some senses but that she also serves the people and wields power more broadly. Other’s interests, vulnerable to her legal power over them, may thus need to be protected both by and against her activities. And the oath of office, which is in no way directed to ensure loyalty to local constituents, casts the unique nature of the public fiduciary relationship into sharp relief by suggesting a fiduciary obligation that begins with the district but extends out to the whole state and even the whole nation.

This analysis has important implications for the viability of Rave’s project first and foremost because it complicates his story about the relevant principal. Rave tends to assume it is the voters in District 77. Yet the work of the state legislator really must serve many plausible candidates for principal — and conflicts must be measured relationally. Even if the people of the nation are an occasional (if somewhat attenuated) candidate for the beneficiary role, there are strong arguments to be made that both the members of the district and the citizens of the whole state are the relevant beneficiaries. Canonical political philosophy confirms this point, while further suggesting that the political representative, in cases of conflict, must be loyal to the state’s citizens as a whole rather than to her constituents. 13

And yet, if a state representative’s ultimate duty is to be loyal to the state, it is hard to complain that Assemblywoman X is self-dealing when she pursues a redistricting plan that she believes to be in the state’s best interest. Assemblywoman X ’s duty to pursue the good of her statewide constituency likely supervenes over the immediate conflict created by her direct interest in a redistricting plan. 14

The difficulty of identifying the relevant principal is not the only challenge facing the fiduciary framework at the heart of Politicians as Fiduciaries . Rave’s model also poses a basic problem on its own terms within the corporate law context, even if one concedes some conflict with some relevant beneficiary. To wit, Assemblywoman X receives special authorization from two different sovereign charters: the Constitution of the State of New York and the U.S. Constitution. Unlike a general authorization to act on behalf of a principal, which would be limited by the common law’s fiduciary obligations, legislators engaged in redistricting act in accordance with a (doubly) specific permission and with an exclusion from the charge of self-dealing. It is as if a corporate charter told a director that she may vote on compensation packages for directors as a whole; that permission establishes the scope of the fiduciary relationship and sanctions the specific form of self-dealing at issue there. 15 This type of authorization, which essentially imposes a structural requirement of self-dealing, is clearly permissible. 16 Similarly, the U.S. and state constitutions tell legislators that they may self-deal in this limited way.

Moreover, in corporate law, statutes specifically permit conflicted transactions to stand, so long as they are adequately disclosed and approved by a majority of disinterested directors. 17 A shareholder, accordingly, does not have a winning suit for breach of the duty of loyalty if the nonconflicted directors vote to approve the transaction. Applied to the context of redistricting, this principle suggests that, so long as the rest of the legislature goes along with drawing District 77 as District 77’s representative prefers, the “taint” is essentially removed and the plan is neither void nor voidable for a breach of fiduciary duty. This result holds true because the “conflicted” legislator’s act is deemed cleansed through the legislature’s vote: so long as that legislator is not the deciding vote, the legislator did not taint the deliberations, and the conflict was disclosed to all. And, even if the representative from District 77 is considered conflicted with respect to District 77’s line-drawing (a proposition complicated by the two charters that define the scope of the fiduciary relationship), the other 149 members of the New York Assembly are not directly conflicted with respect to District 77 in the same way. Thus, a majority of their votes in support of the redistricting plan would effectively immunize our hypothetical Assemblywoman X from any breach of loyalty claim; no other safe harbors are required. 18

This point is only reinforced by the fact that “[m]ost states require the Governor to approve the redistricting plans” and “give the Governor the power to veto any redistricting plan introduced by the Legislature for any reason.” 19 Such procedures involve yet another so-called “independent” director, the state’s chief executive officer; which may further cleanse the potential taint of self-interest. Alternatively, the governor’s role in overseeing redistricting plans in many states might also be viewed as being the direct voice of her state’s “shareholders,” given that the governor is directly elected from the entire state by popular vote and without being tethered to the districting process. 20 From this perspective, the governor’s approval of a particular redistricting plan is like the second, shareholder-approval prong of corporate safe-harbor statutes. Either way, the requirement of gubernatorial approval in the context of redistricting can provide another layer of cleansing.

Yet there is little need to import the concept of corporate cleansing into the legislative arena to cast doubt on Rave’s translation: there is a corollary public-law concept that has been a part of liberal political theory for more than two centuries. As James Madison famously phrased his argument in support of a representative democracy in The Federalist No. 10 , legislative bodies have the unique ability to “pass” private interests “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens.” 21 In other words, by submitting legislative proposals to the crucible of deliberation and the lawmaking process, there is supposed to be a kind of “filtering” effect that removes different forms of private-interest taint. So, just as Rave avoids identifying the relevant beneficiary adequately, he might also be misidentifying the relevant fiduciary as well — that is, the right level of analysis might be to consider the legislature and not the individual legislator . 22 Although that institutional picture has much going for it (the consequences of which we cannot spell out in this context), it would deeply disrupt the mechanics of Rave’s analysis.

Beyond what we have just said about the way some corporate law could be used to undermine Rave’s ultimate result, our core thesis is that there is an important mismatch between corporations and legislatures. As Rave certainly appreciates, unlike some directors in a corporation, there are exceedingly few meaningfully independent legislators. 23 Almost all legislators are members of national political parties that exert some influence and apply pressure in the redistricting context. 24 Thus, the real culprits driving the transactions Rave identifies as self-dealing may be the political parties — a point which would appear to militate against a finding of breach of fiduciary obligation in the average redistricting transaction for the average politician.

To be sure, “fiduciary political theory” might be able to find a way to explore how interconnections between districts and parties actually can be thought to run afoul of the safe harbor conferred by the legislative process. But Rave has not provided a sustained argument tracing these complexities and relationships. At the very least, the fact that political parties may be intervening causes interrupts an easy application of private fiduciary principles to legislators, unless the parties are also fiduciaries and owe something to beneficiaries — an unlikely conclusion, and not one for which Rave argues. Yet, political parties are an essential piece of the puzzle, and simply mapping the private fiduciary role onto state legislators as individuals tells us little about how to constrain party behavior, undoubtedly the root cause of partisan gerrymandering. Shoehorning fiduciary principles to force them to fit this relational matrix is, we hope we have shown here, an unwieldy affair.

The overlooked complexities of fiduciary political theory in Politicians as Fiduciaries also spill over into the question about whether judicial enforcement is really the best design choice for fiduciary oversight. Rave’s argument in support of judicial resolution of political gerrymandering claims is simple enough: “Just as the remedy for breach of the duty of loyalty in agency or corporate law is invalidation of the conflicted transaction, the remedy for a law passed in breach of representative’s duty of loyalty should be invalidation of the” redistricting plan. 25 Rave contends that “[w]hen legislatures pass laws regulating the political process that might serve to entrench incumbents (such as drawing districts), a conflict of interest exists,” which “should trigger heightened judicial scrutiny, just like a conflict of interest would in the corporate context.” 26

To Rave’s credit, when he pivots toward identifying the right judicial remedy, Rave does not argue for a free-standing cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty upon a legislator’s “conflicted” vote for a redistricting plan. Putting aside our skepticism that one could make out a valid and traditional breach of fiduciary duty claim in the relevant relational matrix, Rave is clearly right that a simplistic cause of action against legislators is counterindicated. 27 Nevertheless, Rave’s conclusion that judges are “institutionally well suited” to evaluate the processes by which redistricting plans are devised seems unlikely to us. 28 Indeed, Politicians as Fiduciaries proposes an enforcement mechanism deeply at odds with prevailing districting practices, and one insensitive to the moral and institutional ecosystem of the public fiduciary relationship.

On Rave’s view, the vast majority of states would not qualify for safe harbors (by his own account most legislatures show no sign of ceding districting control), which means most judges would still be in the business of entire fairness review, the very kind of review he thinks judges ill suited to make. 29 Moreover, even if there were significant migration to process review as legislatures responded to the legal incentives to avoid careful judicial scrutiny, there are few helpful guideposts for ascertaining the proper kind of process that judges should treat as providing safe harbor. There is, of course, a danger that judges themselves may be conflicted and partisan, so vagaries in benchmarks for process review invite all the same concerns with which Rave begins.

Rave also ignores, most importantly, that the threat of judicial enforcement is only one blunt mechanism used to deter breaches of fiduciary duties, and it is one that is often inadvisable, especially in the public realm. Fiduciary law — the law of trust, not just the law of trusts — sometimes looks to create room for relationships to breathe to help avoid “crowding out” interpersonal trust by enforcing very demanding standards of behavior. 30 Designing an optimal regime for fiduciary oversight involves creating multifarious signals and orientations for fiduciaries to help them in their relationships with beneficiaries. But the law should shy away from judicial micromanagement because public-law relationships — like their private law corollaries — are not generally the sort of relationships that take well to too much judicial meddling. 31 This essential part of the fiduciary principle disappears in Rave’s application.

Within the fiduciary field, courts are long on rhetoric precisely because they rarely wield the stick — and extralegal sanctions do much of the work to police compliance. 32 In the political sphere, we have many extralegal mechanisms to reinforce fiduciary obligations: elections, civil society, newspapers, and watchdog groups are as much a part of the tapestry of fiduciary governance as courts are. Without strong reinforcement of social norms and institutional design to help nurture such norms (which judicial review could crowd out), these particular fiduciary relationships could be threatened. All of this is to say that “independent” institutions for redistricting might be salutary and supported by some general fiduciary political theory, but fiduciary principles do not easily support specific doctrinal mechanisms of judicial enforcement. Indeed, some measure of judicial abdication may trigger more mobilization for real reform through plebiscites and other innovations than would a faint-hearted process review that does little to cleanse self-dealing behavior. 33 Ultimately, close judicial scrutiny of redistricting may do much to pollute the legitimacy of the judicial branch, which cannot help but seem transparently political when deciding partisan gerrymandering cases.

Rave should be commended for taking a growing oeuvre of fiduciary political theory and producing a practical doctrinal payoff for public law. Yet Politicians as Fiduciaries also serves as an important reminder that one must take great care to consider the limitations of analogy and metaphor in the course of proposing private law solutions for public governance problems. A straightforward importation of private law duties into the unique relationship between represented and representative is not appropriate. Instead, we need a deeper appreciation of the particularities of political relationships so that we can calibrate the fiduciary principle and related enforcement mechanisms to this sui generis public domain. We hope others will take up this project after digesting Rave’s impressive and provocative piece of work.

* Ethan J. Leib is Professor of Law at Fordham Law School; David L. Ponet is Parliamentary Specialist at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); and Michael Serota holds a J.D from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Authors’ names are listed in alphabetical order. Thanks to Richard Squire, Evan Fox-Decent, Evan Criddle, Caroline Gentile, and Paul Miller for their comments and suggestions. Fordham Law School provided financial support.

1 D. Theodore Rave, Politicians as Fiduciaries , 126 Harv. L. Rev. 671 (2013).

2 . See Evan Fox-Decent, Sovereignty’s Promise (2012); Ethan J. Leib, David L. Ponet & Michael Serota, A Fiduciary Theory of Judging , 101 Calif. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2013); Ethan J. Leib & David L. Ponet, Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children , 20 J. Pol. Phil. 178 (2012); David L. Ponet & Ethan J. Leib, Fiduciary Law’s Lessons for Deliberative Democracy , 91 B.U. L. Rev. 1249 (2011); see also Evan J. Criddle, Fiduciary Administration: Rethinking Popular Representation in Agency Rulemaking , 88 Tex. L. Rev. 441 (2010); Evan J. Criddle, Fiduciary Foundations of Administrative Law , 54 UCLA L. Rev. 117 (2006); Evan Fox-Decent, The Fiduciary Nature of State Legal Authority , 31 Queen’s L.J. 259 (2005); Robert G. Natelson, Judicial Review of Special Interest Spending: The General Welfare Clause and the Fiduciary Law of the Founders , 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 239, 245 (2007); Robert G. Natelson, The Constitution and the Public Trust , 52 Buff. L. Rev. 1077 (2004). Much of this work was foreshadowed in Paul Finn, The Forgotten “Trust”: The People and the State , in Equity: Issues and Trends 131 (Malcolm Cope ed., 1995); and Paul Finn, Public Trust and Public Accountability , 3 Griffith L. Rev. 224 (1994).

3 . Nothing in this essay should be taken as an argument against redistricting law reform efforts, or even against the potential applicability of fiduciary political theory to support such efforts. We only offer an analysis of Rave’s attempt at translating fiduciary principles into a particular redistricting law reform agenda. We do not, alas, have the room to develop an affirmative argument setting forth the best way to undertake a translation of fiduciary political theory into redistricting law.

4 . Rave, supra note 1, at 677.

5 . Id. at 719–720.

6 . See id. at 723–724.

7 . Leib & Ponet, supra note 2, at 186.

8 . See generally Ethan J. Leib, Friends as Fiduciaries , 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 665 (2009).

9 . See Rave, supra note 1, at 718–719. In previous work, we have explored how the category of the fiduciary supervenes over both agency and trustee conceptualizations of political representation. See Leib & Ponet, supra note 2, at 179. Even if both are fiduciaries, the duties are not likely applied in identical fashion as between agent and trustee — and they are not likely to be applied identically between private and public versions thereof.

10 . Leib, Ponet & Serota, supra note 2 (manuscript at 14).

11 . See Rave, supra note 1, at 711–713.

12 . New York State Senate or New York State Assembly Member, Officer or Employee Oath/Affirmation, DOS-1692-f-l (2011), available at http://www.dos.ny.gov/forms/corporations/1692-f-l.pdf .

13 . The dual nature of political representation has been observed by several political philosophers who acknowledge, each in their own way, that the representative may be at once partial to one societal segment while also responsible for representing the broader public good. See, e.g. , Edmund Burke , Speech to the Electors at Bristol, in Selected Writings and Speeches 186, 186–87 (Peter J. Stanlis ed., 1963); see generally, e.g. , John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (London, Parker, Son & Bourn 1861).

14 . Note importantly (as Rave does, but without sufficient concern) that much partisan gerrymandering concerns congressional redistricting by state legislators, a domain in which concern about direct self-dealing fades. Whatever indirect benefit Assemblywoman X might get from a congressional redistricting plan, voting on such plans simply cannot constitute self-dealing and a clear conflict of interest. Without the stench of self-dealing and conflict, Rave cannot make out the simple case of fiduciary breach that he attempts to establish in a large class of cases that come before the courts.

15 . Another example of an act that could give rise to a claim based upon breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty unless explicitly permitted in the charter is usurpation of corporate opportunities. Under the common law, directors were prohibited by the fiduciary duty of loyalty from taking business opportunities that belonged to the corporation. See, e.g. , Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 511 (Del. 1939). But as of 2000, section 122(17) of the Delaware General Corporation Law permits a corporation to “[r]enounce, in its certificate of incorporation or by action of its board of directors, any interest or expectancy of the corporation in, or in being offered an opportunity to participate in, specified business opportunities or specified classes or categories of business opportunities that are presented to the corporation or 1 or more of its officers, directors or stockholders.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 122(17) (2000).

16 . See Lewis v. Vogelstein, 699 A.2d 327 (Del. Ch. 1997). Indeed, it seems to be the statutory default rule that directors can vote on their own salaries even if the charter does not specifically authorize it. See Marx v. Akers, 88 N.Y.2d 189, 203 (N.Y. 1996) (“Many jurisdictions, including New York, have since changed the common-law rule by statute providing that a corporation’s board of directors has the authority to fix director compensation unless the corporation’s charter or bylaws provides otherwise. Thus, the allegation that directors have voted themselves compensation is clearly no longer an allegation which gives rise to a cause of action, as the directors are statutorily entitled to set those levels.”). See also Cal. Corp. Code § 310(a) (West 1977); Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(h); N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 713(e) (McKinney 1998). That kind of self-dealing — which is permitted by corporate law — does not seem too different from legislators voting on redistricting plans once every ten years, or so one could argue.

17 . See Cal. Corp. Code § 310(a); Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 144(a)(1); N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 713(a)(1).

18 . Of course, some adjacent districts are affected by the hypothetical District 77’s contours — and the two-party system renders the redistricting plan a much more complex transaction with a cluster of potential indirect conflicts. But corporate law’s approach to conflicts is to be particular about what qualifies as a true conflict. Courts sniff for something that smells rotten — and they are quite hands-off when it comes to subtle inter-director ties, focused as they are on finding clear conflicts. See Model Bus. Corp. Act § 8.60 (2011). Even then, the safe harbor and the clear authorization seem to give legislators the same immunity from breach claims that their corporate sisters would get.

19 . State-by-state Redistricting Procedures , Ballotopedia , http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures (last visited Sept. 27, 2012).

20 . Thanks to Caroline Gentile for this insight.

21 . The Federalist No. 10, at 78 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). Madison did not seek to remove the causes of faction (certainly not with as clunky a tool as judicial review) but rather to control its potentially pernicious effects through institutional design.

22 . Professor Evan Fox-Decent, a fiduciary political theorist with an extraordinary book on this subject, tends to see state authority as the right analytical level at which to apply fiduciary norms. See generally Fox-Decent , supra note 2.

23 . See Rave, supra note 1, at 680, 685, 724 n.303.

24 . Of course, the real question is whether the ties supplied by political parties eviscerate the entire legislature’s ability to claim that it is authorized and permitted a safe harbor to redistrict. That is a hard question whose answer cannot be assumed in order to avoid difficult explanations about the mechanics of establishing a valid breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

25 . Rave, supra note 1, at 720.

26 . Rave, supra note 1, at 723.

27 . But see Complaint at 1–2, Klein v. Reid, No. 6:12-CV-1256-ORL-36DAB, 2012 WL 4856743 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2012) (misunderstanding Ponet & Leib, supra note 2, to establish a cause of action against legislators for breach of fiduciary duty in certain circumstances).

28 . Rave, supra note 1, at 724.

29 . Id. at 725–26.

30 . See Larry E. Ribstein, Fencing Fiduciary Duties 91 B.U. L. Rev. 899, 905–06 (2011).

31 . See Margaret M. Blair & Lynn A. Stout, Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Behavioral Foundations of Corporate Law , 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1735, 1797–98 (2001).

32 . Id. at 1796–97.

33 . See also Michael Serota, Stare Decisis and the Brady Doctrine , 5 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 415, 430 (2011) (noting that episodic instrumentalist judicial decision making “may have the unintended effect of stifling legitimate efforts at leg[islative] reform” because it masks the underlying policy problem).

• Political Process

January 23, 2013

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Ethics and Integrity in Public Service Leadership: A Case for Promoting Meritocratic, Professional and Neutral Service

2019, African Jpurnal of Public Administration and Management

"Public office is a public trust" (Josephson 1990) is a maxim which requires; public confidence in the integrity of government, lays the foundation for the ethical demands placed on people in public service and the laws that establish standards of behaviour. Although ethics, integrity and professionalism go hand in hand and are core values in how organizations conduct their business, their flagrant absence in the public service whose activities touch on the lives of citizens is dismaying. High-profile scandals in the public service over the past few years have raised serious concerns in government. A fundamental issue facing the governments today is therefore how to ensure that public servants act ethically and with integrity. In addressing this concern the Government of Kenya has put in place several approaches aimed at instilling ethical behaviour in the public servants. These include legislation, development of code of conduct and training among other strategies. While the contributions of these initiatives which include punitive consequences cannot be ignored, they cannot be adjudged to have been successful either. Using research evidence to draw a linkage between ethics, integrity and professionalism on the one hand and the recruitment method on the other, this paper suggests that the success of ethics and integrity initiatives can be greatly hampered by patronage based appointments of top public servants. The findings demonstrate that 'gate keeping' through merit based recruitment and selection process, which ensures that only the best and the most qualified are hired for the job is a critical step in entrenchment of professionalism, ethics and integrity in the public service that Kenya cannot overlook or take for granted.

Related Papers

The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies

Prof. David Minja

ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW

Esther Letsoalo

International Journal of Trend in Research and Development

Fredrick Mukabi

The discussion in this paper intended to answer the question, "Why do the traits that help leaders to ascend to high positions of authority disappear once they achieved those positions? To unveil this paradox of power, the authors explored unethical practices such as corruption emanating from abuse of office powers among leaders elected or appointed on a clean bill of ethics. The discussion is informed by Lewinian Situational Model of leadership that analyses the dynamics of person and environment interactions in the regions of life space. Empirical evidence indicated that abuse of office causes severe adverse effects on economic growth and lowers allocation of public spending. Awareness of severe effects of corruption on a country's social and economic development motivated the authors of this paper to conduct an empirical investigation on the paradox of power among leaders in the public sector with the ultimate aim of identifying intervention strategies that can mitigate this menace. The authors were oblivious of dominant dispositional orientations such as genetic, personality, character and pathological risk factors that are important in appreciating the integrity of individual functioning, it is also important to examine the extent to which human actions are exposed to situational influences that can be quite powerful. The basic paradigm presented in this paper illustrates the relative ease in which "ordinary," good men and women" are induced into unethical practices by turning on or off one social situational variable which deter them from becoming the heroes or heroines they were meant to be by their personal character. Power does not turn everyone into ruthless, unethical tyrants as the legacy of great leaders in Africa like Nelson Mandela exists. The paper concludes that power does not corrupt leaders but it heightens pre-existing situational tendencies. The paper recommends that the key factor to becoming a great leader is to balance the art of upholding ethical values and remaining humane.

Olatunji Alabi Oyeshile

Alemetena Ketema

Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of Asian Association for Public Administration: "Reinventing Public Administration in a Globalized World: A Non-Western Perspective" (AAPA 2018)

Karani Gitonga

IJSRP Journal

The concept ethical practice is defined as the adherence and honour of morals, beliefs and values of a profession one is subscribed to. It also encompasses helping others who have been subjected to biased making of decisions. In the world, there is an overriding worry when it comes to the management of human resource in organizations. The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) has linked poor performance of organizations in the world to unethical management of human resources, and more so during the recruitment processes. This project evaluates possibilities of poor performances in the police service in Kenya in stemming insecurity over the last four years, to unethical practices in the service. Specifically, the paper evaluates the implications of unethical police recruitments in Kenya over the last four years to overall performance of the police force in Kenya. This paper employs qualitative research methodology as a way of collecting data to qualify the hypothesis; that the unethical practice in the recruitment of the police service in Kenya has resulted to high levels of insecurity. Specifically, this project utilized focus group discussions, key informant interviews, participant observations, and case studies. Interviews involved two human rights individuals, two willing police officers stationed in Nairobi, three government officers at EACC and two Kenyan politicians. Three stations used during the 2014 police recruitment exercise were chosen for getting field notes.

Nieves Zuniga

South African Crime Quarterly

Werner Webb

The prevention of corruption is a common theme of the election manifestos of most political parties in the run-up to the general elections of 2009. This development is without doubt due to the many allegations of wrongdoing among officials within the ruling party and its senior appointments to the public service. The loss of public trust in the South African government and the public service has been the main consequence of these allegations. Internationally, governments have put corruption prevention on their agenda. Many remedies for unethical conduct have been proposed, including a free press, independent courts of law, scrupulous behaviour by political leaders, and government reform. It is then up to individual countries to decide what ‘mixture’ of remedies should be applied. This article argues that our efforts to enhance ethics and integrity would benefit more by promoting, for example, an ethical organisational culture in the criminal justice system than overly focusing our a...

Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets and Institutions

Melody Brauns

This paper endeavours to critically examine ethics in South Africa especially after the first democratic elections and later developments. Such an analysis will inevitably overspill to the quality of service delivery and participation. As such there is a need for ethics to be re-examined and investigate how this may be used to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the South African government service. Much has been written on ethics and their relevance to the public sector organisations. Indeed they are critical for service delivery for both sectors namely, private and public sectors. This paper will trace the origins and development of ethics and their relationship with other associated terms such as morals, codes of conduct and relate same to the guidelines emanating from the South African Constitution Act (Act 108 of 1996). Once this objective has been achieved the position of ethics to our daily lives from individual and citizenship perspective will be explored. By such invest...

RELATED PAPERS

Noord-Holland in het 1e millennium

Johan Nicolay

laura bautista

Jorge Emilio

adela alejandro

Gilles Authier

Mega Hutama

Anderson Duarte

Roney Teodoro

ASIAN JOURNAL OF BIO SCIENCE

roshni vijayan

Pamela Asquith

The European Physical Journal Plus

BIKASH CHANDRA PAUL

The Anatolian Journal of …

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

jorge ruiz sanchez

Lucas Palacios

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Léna Masson

Renal Failure

Ahmed Ahmed

kjgg fdfdgg

Helgoland Marine Research

Antje Wichels

Canadian Journal of Law and Society

Cecilia Morgan

Ahrash Bissell

Industry and Innovation

Sergey Anokhin

卡迪夫大学学位证 gfh

2010 Fourth UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation

Fatemeh Halataei

Jeffrey J Lusk

Applied Thermal Engineering

Masoud Reyhanian

MedS Alliance Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences

Dr. Laxmi Shrestha

IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Patrick McSharry

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Public trust

Public trust is a concept that relates back to the origins of democratic government and its seminal idea that within the public lies the true power and future of a society; therefore, whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected. One of the reasons that bribery is regarded as a notorious evil is that it contributes to a culture of political corruption in which the public trust is eroded. Other issues related to political corruption or betrayal of public trust are lobbying, special interest groups and the public cartel.

• 1.1 Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations
• 1.2 The Dictionary of Legal Quotations (1904)
• 3 External links

Quotes [ edit ]

• Henry Clay , speech at Lexington (May 16, 1829).
• Grover Cleveland , Letter of Acceptance as Candidate for Governor (Oct. 7, 1882). See W. O. Stoddard's Life of Cleveland, Chapter IX.
• Grover Cleveland , Inaugural Address (March 4, 1885). See also speech in accepting the nomination to the Mayoralty of Buffalo. First Message as Mayor. Reply to the committee appointed by the National Democratic Convention to inform him of his nomination to the Presidency, July 28, 1884.
• Benjamin Franklin , letter to Joseph Galloway (December 2, 1772), in Jared Sparks, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (1839), vol. 8, p. 23.
• Nathan Hale , remark to his friend, Captain William Hull, who attempted to dissuade him from volunteering for spy duty, early September 1776.—Isaac William Stuart, Life of Captain Nathan Hale, p. 94 (1856). While General Washington desperately needed someone to provide information on the strength and location of the enemy, he could not command someone to be a spy. He needed a paid spy or a volunteer. Hale was the sole volunteer. At the end of his mission, Hale was captured by the British and hanged on September 22, 1776. He was twenty-one years old.
• Thomas Jefferson , to Baron Humboldt, reported in B. L. Rayner, Life of Thomas Jefferson (1834), p. 356. Rayner says the remark was made during a conversation in the president's office with Baron Alexander von Humboldt, the celebrated naturalist and traveler.
• Walter Lippmann , Essays in the Public Philosophy (1935), p. 26.
• Richard Nixon , televised question and answer session at the annual convention of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association, Orlando, Florida, November 17, 1973. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1973 , p. 956.
• William Penn , Some Fruits of Solitude in Reflections & Maxims, no. 370, p. 73 (1903, reprinted 1976).
• Theodore Roosevelt , address at the Harvard Union, Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 23, 1907.—"Athletics, Scholarship and Public Service," The Strenuous Life (vol. 13 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, national ed.), chapter 27, p. 563 (1926).
• Adlai Stevenson , governor of Illinois, speech before the Colorado Volunteers-for-Stevenson dinner, Denver, Colorado, September 5, 1952.—Speeches of Adlai Stevenson, p. 23 (1952).
• Charles Sumner , speech in the United States Senate (May 31, 1872). According to Col. John S. Wolf, of Champaign, it originated in a decision of Justice Samuel D. Lockwood, of the Illinois Supreme Court, prior to 1840. He served from 1825 to 1848. Washington Star , May 5, 1891, assigns it to Thomas M. Cooley. See Constitutional Law (Pub. 1880), pg. 303. Charles James Fox. (1788). Sydney Smith in Edinburgh Review. (1825). Webster—Bunker Hill Address. (1825). President Andrew Johnson's Message. (1867). Abram S. Hewitt—Speech. (1883). Daniel S. Lamont. Motto of Pamphlet. (1884).
• Thucydides , "Funeral Speech of Pericles," Thucydides, trans. Benjamin Jowett, 2d ed., rev., vol. 1, book 2, section 37, p. 127–28 (1900).
• Harry S. Truman , speech to the Press and Union League Club, San Francisco, California, October 25, 1956.—Transcript, p. 30. The last sentence was added in longhand to the typewritten speech. Truman had made similar remarks at a political rally in John Hancock Hall, Boston, Massachusetts, September 29, 1956, as reported by The Boston Sunday Globe, September 30, 1956, p. 38: "There is an old girl called Anno Domini that catches up with us and she has been trying to catch up with me. It just seems to me to make sense to move on and make way for younger men. It seems to me to make sense to move out of the White House voluntarily without waiting to be carried out."
• Woodrow Wilson , governor of New Jersey, presidential campaign address, Madison Square Garden, New York City, October 31, 1912.—The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Arthur S. Link, vol. 25, p. 493 (1978). Wilson spoke to an audience estimated at between 12,000 and 16,000 persons. For two hours before he arrived, the crowd listened to various other speakers. Upon his arrival there was a "tumultuous ovation which lasted for more than an hour. Wilson was so moved that he forgot his prepared speech" (p. 493, footnote).
• Attributed to Silas Wright in Edward Parsons Day, Day's Collacon (1884), p. 684. Reported as unverified in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989). According to biographies, this is in character. Wright was a nineteenth century representative and senator from New York, and served as governor of New York. In 1844, he declined a Supreme Court appointment, refused to be considered for the presidential nomination and declined, when nominated, to be a candidate for the vice presidency. Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 10, part 2, p. 556.

Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations [ edit ]

• Jeremy Bentham .
• Edmund Burke , Reflections on the Revolution in France .
• John C. Calhoun , speech (July 13, 1835).
• W. W. Crapo .
• Benjamin Disraeli , Vivian Grey , Book VI, Chapter VII.
• Dorman B. Eaton , The "Spoils" System and Civil Service Reform , Chapter III. The Merit System.
• Hon. R. P. Flower , on the night of Mr. Cleveland's election as Governor of New York.
• Matthew Henry , Commentaries , Timothy , III.
• Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay , Essay on Horace Walpole (1833).

The Dictionary of Legal Quotations (1904) [ edit ]

• Willes, J., Booking v. Jones (1870), L. R. 6 Com. PL Ca. 35.
• Field, J., Hennessy v. Wright (1888), L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 513.
• Holt , C.J., Ashby v. White (1703), 2 Raym. 956.
• Coleridge, J., Brownlow v. Egerton (1854), 23 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Eq. 372.
• Field, J., Hennessy v. Wright (1888), L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 512. This was an action for libel by a Colonial Governor against The Times for publishing articles alleging that members of the Council of Government of Mauritius had charged him with sending to the Colonial Office garbled reports of their speeches.
• Wilmot , J., Stotesbury v. Smith (1759), 2 Burr. Part IV., p. 928.
• Lord Mansfield , R. v. Bembridge (1783), 22 How. St. Tr. 152.
• Holt , C.J., Regina v. Langley (1703), 2 Raym. 1029.
• Lord Mansfield , R. v. Bembridge (1783), 22 How. St. Tr. 155.
• Sir Frederick Pollock, 1st Baronet , Reg. v. Renton (1848), 2 Exch. Rep. 220.
• Eyre, B., Sutton v. Johnstone (1786), 1 T. R. 504.

See also [ edit ]

• Public administration
• Public administration theory

External links [ edit ]

Navigation menu

PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

10 basic principles on public officers.

Popular Posts

The four-fold test in labor law

Penalties for theft (Art 309)

Law to allow civil service exam passers to use 'CSE' suffix

Elements of frustrated homicide

Can mistress be held liable under RA 9262?

Elements of an obligation

Homicide (Article 249)

• FACTS FIRST PH
• ENVIRONMENT
• DOUBLE TEAM
• ENTERTAINMENT
• ARTS AND CULTURE

Iloilo gears up to revive hog industry

E-jeep dry run extended four days, 1,353 capiz farmers get p5,000 aid, ceneco rates increase by p3.2/kwh in may 2024, dti enforces price freeze in western visayas, bloomberry foundation launches medical scholarship program, gcash and farm konekt enhance farmers’ financial access, doubledragon to open 50th citymall in antique, celtics overpower cavs, reach conference finals, creamline stars decline national team invites, mamuyac’s heroics lead rain or shine past tnt, philippines to host fifa futsal women’s world cup, jokic’s monster night steers denver to a 3-2 lead over minnesota, beat the heat in style: fashion, comfort, and practicability, chris hemsworth is twisted as dementus in ‘furiosa: a mad max…, scarlett johansson and channing tatum star in ‘fly me to the…, ryan reynolds brings heart and humor to family adventure-comedy “if”.

• ZOOMER THOUGHTS

Public office is a public trust

Recently, a Philippine senator uttered remarks implying that he is loyal to the country’s chief executive to the extent that he loves him. However, occupying a public office as an elected official means that such official should be loyal to his/her country and fellow Filipinos, not to some other politician.

According to Article XI, Section I of the Philippine Constitution, “Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” For historical context, the phrase  public office is a public trust  is often attributed to one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and its third president, Thomas Jefferson. “When a man assumes a public trust (office),” he said, “he should consider himself as public property.” From here, it is imperative to take note that elected officials of the government are supposed to be loyal to the country and to their fellow countrymen—not to some other politician or ally. This, actually, is common sense and self-explanatory given the fact that the salaries received by public officials emanate from the contribution of the people in the form of taxes.

Personally, I am frustrated of the fact that many—perhaps most—officials within our government love so much a certain fellow politician as if they owe their current office to them—when, in reality, they are in office thanks to the will of the masses. As elections are nearing, it is essential for the people to remember that the people we elect to public office are—in the words of Jefferson—a public property. They are in power to fulfill their mandates for us, the people, specifically by championing good causes, fighting corruption, protecting human rights, providing services to everyone in the form of education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and so forth. They are not in power to make dramatic statements nor are they in power to express their admiration for an ally. We must demand that they work and that they work efficiently basically because we pay them our taxes.

Speaking of taxes, it is necessary that the masses have some sort of mechanism or way to be aware on how their taxes are being spent or where such taxes go to. Fortunately, some government offices—particularly the Commission on Audit (COA) —are tasked by pertinent laws of the country to make sure that the contributions of the people are being accounted for. In the case of COA, it is apparent that they flag alleged misuse of funds within the government. Recently, several audit reports were publicized wherein questionable transactions were flagged such as an infinity pool constructed by a government authority in a northern province—in the middle of a pandemic. Another case involves the purchase of four laptops at a total price of P 700,000 or P 175,000 per unit. Funnier is the fact that the specifications of such laptops are not that much advanced. As of writing, though, the government agency supposed to buy those laptops did not push through doing so. It seems that public backlash and criticisms are helpful in making sure that our taxes are spent wisely and appropriately.

Altogether, we must remind ourselves—especially that the elections are fast-approaching—that we do not owe anything to our officials. Rather, it is the other way around especially that we pay them their benefits in the form of taxes.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Balancing progress with compassion, alice in wonderland, the myth of false dichotomies, drought causes p16m damage to livestock.

The Daily Guardian is a renascent Iloilo-based publishing firm and media outfit with bureaus in Kalibo, Boracay, Roxas, Bacolod, Antique, Guimaras, and Manila. Led by Iloilo’s most respected journalists, the Daily Guardian pledges to tell the Ilonggo story as seen through the various lenses of society so that every side may be told.

• FUTURE STUDENTS
• CURRENT STUDENTS
• REQUEST INFO

Knowledge Update

Public service is a public trust: how will civil servants be accountable for their actions.

A constitutional description of public office is a public trust where public officers and employees commonly known as civil servants and public officials must be at all times. These civil servants and public officials are accountable to the people, whom they should serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. They are expected to act with patriotism and provide fair justice as well as lead a role of living modest lives.

At present, issues in corruption continue to affect the civil services in many countries, around the world. Several reasons of these issues still exist because of the deeply rooted problems like nepotism, cronyism, political patronage as well as lack of transparency and accountability. The unsystematic enforcement of law and institutional mechanisms for holding civil servants and public officials accountable of their actions will always lead to a negative impression to the citizens. Civil servants often have the liberty on how they serve the public. Their ability in implementing the rules to provide public services has always a significant impact to the common citizens. The code of conduct and ethical standard for public officials and employees is set forth to promote high ethical standards in providing public services. One of the example of this particular code is the mandatory implementation to every government officials specifically those who are elected by the people to have a transparent declaration of their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. The strong enforcement of transparency and accountability in all civil servants and public officials will reduce the practice of corruption and the misuse of public office. Several countries established institutional mechanisms such as Ombudsman, Anti-Corruption Commission and Special Administrative Court aimed to set a legal place and forum to hear and investigate any civil servants and public officials who in any ways, practice corruption, maladministration or violation of rights. Any person who experiences wrongly fully, unjustly or unreasonably treated can bring a case to these offices and can request for proper investigation. These offices are empowered to continue in upholding fair and just due process of law in the course of investigating any administrative case filed against a civil servant or public official. The verdict for those civil servant or public official proven to be guilty of practicing corruption, maladministration or violation of rights is usually dismissal from the service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeited retirement benefits and disqualification of re-employment in the government service.

• SUC at the glance
• Vision, Mission, Goals & Objectives
• Licensure & Accreditation
• Organization Chart
• Board of Trustees
• SUC Founder
• Academic Affairs Council
• Vice Chancellor
• External Advisory Council
• Community Engagement
• Policies and Procedures
• Faculty and Staff Handbooks
• Annual report and Fact book
• General Education Department
• Academic Support Services
• Library Department
• Archive Catalogs
• School of Business
• School of Computing
• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Student Services Department
• Scholarships
• Deadlines and Important Dates
• Personality Assessment Test
• Refund Policy
• First Year Application
• Fee Structures
• Professional Courses
• International Students
• Know More About Skyline
• Student Services Department (SSD)
• Academic Advising Mentoring
• Student Clubs
• Student Committees
• SUC Student Council
• Personal Skills Development Program (PSDP)
• Hostel and Transportation
• Career Advising and Counseling
• Academic Career Opportunities
• Support Staff Career Opportunities

• 03324842536
• My Wishlist

• Biographies
• English Books & Novels
• Engineering Books
• Entry Test Books
• Islamic Books
• Kids Collection
• Medical Books
• Urdu Novels
• Urdu Poetry
• Self Help Motivational Books
• School & Laptop Bags
• Accessories

Public Office Is A Public Trust

ESSAY OUTLINE

1: Introduction a. Background on the concept of public office b. Definition of public trust and its significance c. Thesis statement: Public office is a public trust, as it carries with it the responsibility to serve the interests of the people.

2: Body A. Historical context of public office as a public trust

1. Discuss the origins of the concept in democratic societies 2. Highlight historical examples of leaders who exemplified the trust placed in public office

B. Responsibilities of public office

1. Duty to uphold the public interest a. Explain how elected officials are entrusted with the power to make decisions that impact society b. Discuss the importance of making decisions based on the greater good rather than personal gain

2. Accountability and transparency a. Explore the necessity of being accountable to the public b. Discuss the role of transparency in maintaining public trust

C. Consequences of betraying public trust

1. Corruption and its impact on society a. Explain how corruption erodes public trust in institutions and leaders b. Provide examples of scandals that resulted in a loss of public trust

2. Legal and ethical ramifications a. Discuss the legal implications of breaching public trust b. Examine the ethical considerations of betraying the trust placed in public office

3: Counterarguments and Rebuttals a. Address potential counterarguments against the idea that public office is a public trust b. Provide counterarguments to refute these opposing viewpoints c. Emphasize the importance of maintaining public trust for a functioning democracy

4: Conclusion a. Summarize the main points discussed in the essay b. Reinforce the idea that public office is indeed a public trust c. Call for greater awareness and adherence to the principles of public trust to foster a more accountable and transparent society.

Public office is a position of authority and responsibility held by individuals who are elected or appointed to serve the interests of the public. It is a crucial aspect of democratic societies where power is entrusted to individuals to make decisions and enact policies that shape the course of a nation. Public trust, on the other hand, refers to the confidence and reliance that the public places in those who hold public office. It signifies the expectation that these officials will act in the best interest of the people they serve. This essay explores the concept of public office as a public trust and emphasizes the responsibility it carries to serve the interests of the people.

The idea of public office as a public trust has its roots in the principles of democratic governance. Ancient Greek city-states introduced the concept of elected officials who were entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of the community. Similarly, the Roman Republic emphasized the importance of elected magistrates serving as guardians of public welfare. Throughout history, there have been notable leaders who exemplified the trust placed in public office. Figures like George Washington, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi displayed unwavering commitment to the betterment of their nations, earning the trust and admiration of their fellow citizens.

One of the primary responsibilities of those in public office is to uphold the public interest. Elected officials are entrusted with the power to make decisions that have a significant impact on society. They must act with integrity and prioritize the welfare of the people over personal gain. This duty to serve the greater good requires leaders to consider the long-term consequences of their actions and make decisions that promote the well-being of the entire community, even if it means making difficult choices.

Accountability and transparency are essential components of public office as a public trust. Elected officials are accountable to the public who elected them, and they should be transparent in their actions and decision-making processes. Accountability ensures that public officials can be held responsible for their actions and decisions, fostering a sense of trust between the government and the people. Transparency allows for open scrutiny and provides citizens with the necessary information to assess the actions of their representatives, fostering public confidence in the democratic process.

When public officials betray the trust placed in them, the consequences can be severe. Corruption, for example, undermines public trust in institutions and leaders. When individuals in public office use their position for personal gain or engage in unethical practices, the public’s faith in the system is eroded. Numerous scandals throughout history, such as Watergate in the United States or the recent political corruption cases in various countries, have resulted in a loss of public trust and skepticism towards the integrity of those in power.

The consequences of betraying public trust are not only social but also legal and ethical. Breaching public trust can lead to legal implications, including investigations, prosecutions, and even imprisonment. Moreover, from an ethical perspective, betraying the trust placed in public office undermines the fundamental principles of integrity, honesty, and public service. Leaders who fail to uphold the public trust not only harm the individuals they represent but also tarnish the reputation of the institution itself.

Some might argue that public office is simply a job, and individuals should focus on their personal goals and aspirations rather than prioritizing the public interest. However, this viewpoint fails to recognize that public office is a position of immense power and influence, entrusted to individuals to make decisions that shape society. Such power carries an inherent responsibility to serve the public interest, as the consequences of decisions made by public officials impact the lives of countless individuals.

Additionally, critics may argue that the concept of public trust is an idealistic notion that is rarely upheld in practice. While it is true that instances of betrayal of public trust have occurred throughout history, it is essential to remember that public trust is a fundamental pillar of democracy. By addressing the underlying causes of public mistrust, implementing robust systems of accountability, and promoting transparency, it is possible to restore and strengthen the bond of trust between the government and its citizens.

Public office is a public trust that carries with it the responsibility to serve the interests of the people. This concept has its roots in the principles of democratic governance, emphasizing the importance of elected officials acting in the best interest of the public. Upholding the public interest, being accountable and transparent, and avoiding betrayal of public trust are vital to maintaining a functioning democracy. It is imperative for individuals in public office to recognize the significance of the trust placed in them and strive to foster a culture of accountability and transparency. Only by upholding the principles of public trust can we build a society that is truly accountable, transparent, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of its citizens.

This topic was part of CSS exam of essay paper of 2001. ( CSS PAST PAPERS 2001 )

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Introduction Earth Day is an yearly affair commemorated on April 22nd to promote environmental awareness and sustainability. It was first... Read More

Character Strength

OUTLINE 1: Introduction 2: Sympathy (a) The human desire for sympathy 3: Broad Manes (a) Characteristics of broad manes (b) Their role in society 4: Crudest... Read More

Tit For Tat

ESSAY OUTLINE   1: Introduction a. Hook: "He who eats the fruit should at least plant the seed." b. Background information on the... Read More

Pakistan Goes Local

The Gaza war of 2023 had a significant impact on the global perception of Israeli products, leading to widespread... Read More

God’s Knowledge

The debate about God's knowledge has been ongoing for centuries, and it remains a topic of discussion among theologians,... Read More

Reforms in Examination Systems

ESSAY OUTLINE 1: Introduction A. Definition of examination systems B. Importance of examination systems in education C. Brief overview of the current state... Read More

Hero-Worship

OUTLINE 1: Introduction 2: Understanding Hero-worship Definition of hero-worship Examples of hero-worship in history Effects of hero-worship on society 3: Human Freedom ... Read More

Afghan Conflict Timeline (1979-2021)

The crumple of the Afghan government and the Taliban's recapture of Kabul came after a blitzkrieg by the combative... Read More

Self Flattery

ESSAY OUTLINE 1: Introduction a. Definition of self-conceit b. Thesis statement: Self-conceit, or excessive pride in oneself, can lead to self-destruction by... Read More

5 Unbelievable Facts about Columbus

In spite of the fact that Columbus stays an unmistakable recorded figure all over the planet and has been... Read More

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

‘Public service is a public trust’

The continuing revelations about the monstrous, mind-boggling plunder of the Priority  Development Assistance Fund (PDAF or pork barrel) and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) have brought the Aquino administration to an agonizing stretch in its much-touted “tuwid na daan”  journey. What is appalling is that the members of the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives who are implicated in these controversies don’t seem to feel any remorse as they wash their dirty linens in public. This is not supposed to be the way senators address these crises.

I thought senators are above such outrageousness. I thought  the word “senate” is derived from the Latin word “senex,” which means “old man,” who, by reason of age and experience, is deemed to have gained an abundance of wisdom.

Our lawmakers must maintain high ethical standards and perform their functions with humility and sense of accountability, as expected of public officers. Prudence dictates that instead of accusing each other, they should police their ranks. If needed, they should go to the Supreme Court, a coequal branch of government, its legal conscience, for “guidance.”

Last Oct. 4, concerned citizens gathered in a historic corner of Makati to denounce corruption in the government. Public servants in the government must remember these always: “The voice of the people is the voice of God” and “Sovereignty resides in the people and all the powers of the government emanate from them.” Also, “Public service is a public trust.”

—ANGELO M. ADOR DIONISIO,

[email protected]

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Subscribe to our opinion columns

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

• Privacy Policy
• Our Authors
• Subscribe Us
• Google Plus

Public Office is a Public Trust | Complete CSS Essay

Table of Contents

Public Office is a Public Trust

Public office refers to the position held by a person who is elected or appointed to serve the public in a government or non-government organization. The concept of public office is an important one, as public officials hold a great deal of power and responsibility, making it crucial that they are held to high standards of ethical behavior and accountability. This is why public office is often referred to as a public trust.

The Concept of Public Trust

The term “public trust” refers to a relationship of trust between a public official and the people they serve. This relationship is based on the understanding that the official has been entrusted with the responsibility of acting in the best interests of the public. Public trust is characterized by a high degree of transparency and accountability, as well as a commitment to ethical behavior.

Examples of public trust can be found in many different contexts, such as government, non-profit organizations, and corporations. In each case, the trust relationship between the public and the official is based on the understanding that the official will act with integrity and honesty, and that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Check also: Military Operations MCQs

Public Office as a Public Trust

Public office is considered a public trust in that public officials are trusted with the responsibility of serving the public. This means that they must act with integrity, transparency, and accountability, and must put the needs of the public before their own personal interests.

As trustees, public officials are responsible for ensuring that they are acting in the best interests of the public. This means that they must make decisions that are in line with the values and priorities of the people they serve, and that they must be transparent and accountable in their decision-making processes. If a public official violates the public trust, they can be held responsible for their actions and may face consequences, such as removal from office, legal action, or loss of public support.

Watch video: CSS Essay outline Explained by Zariya Mushtaq

The Importance of Maintaining Public Trust in Public Office

Maintaining public trust in public office is crucial for ensuring that government and non-government organizations are able to function effectively and efficiently. When the public trusts their elected officials, they are more likely to participate in the political process, to support government initiatives, and to hold officials accountable for their actions.

Citizens play a critical role in maintaining public trust in public office. This means being informed about the issues and the actions of public officials, and participating in the political process by voting, writing letters to elected officials, and speaking out about important issues.

Transparency and accountability are also key factors in maintaining public trust in public office. This means that public officials must be open and honest about their decisions and actions, and must be held accountable for their actions by the public and by the media.

Check also: How to Write Effective Essay for CSS Exams

Challenges to Maintaining Public Trust in Public Office

Despite the importance of maintaining public trust in public office, there are many challenges that can arise that can threaten this trust. Some of the causes of loss of public trust include corruption, political polarization, and lack of transparency and accountability.

Examples of challenges to maintaining public trust include unethical behavior by public officials, mismanagement of public funds, and lack of transparency in decision-making processes. To overcome these challenges, it is important for citizens to become informed and engaged, and for public officials to be transparent and accountable in their decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the importance of public office as a public trust cannot be overstated. It is our responsibility as citizens to hold public officials accountable, and to ensure that they are acting in the best interests of the public. By doing so, we can create a more just and equitable society, and ensure that public office remains a source of hope and trust for all citizens.

You may also like below Essay tips and outlines:

• CSS Essay Outline | The Importance of Water Conservation and Management

How to Write Effective Essay for CSS Exams

How to write effective essay on economy 7 steps.

• CSS Essay “Social Networking”
• CSS ESSAY on “Information Technology”
• CSS Essay “Impacts of Media” with Outline | By Aqsa Imtiaz (CSS/PMS 2020 Qualified)
• CSS English Essay | Winning without Fighting
• CSS Essay | The Global Community has Fled Rather Than Led the Issue of Global Warming
• Democracy and Illiteracy Cannot go Together (Hand written Essay PDF Download)
• Are Modern Wars Not Holy Wars? (Complete Essay)

About the author

Shahzad F. Malik

Shahzad Faisal Malik is the administrator of CSSTimes.pk and is responsible for managing the content, design, and overall direction of the blog. He has a strong background in Competitive Exams and is passionate and sharing information with others. Shahzad Faisal Malik has worked as a Graphic Designer/Content Creator at CSSTimes in the past. In his free time, Shahzad Faisal Malik enjoys watching Cricket, writing blogs for different websites and is always on the lookout for new and interesting content to share with the readers of this website. As the website administrator, Shahzad Faisal Malik is dedicated to providing high-quality content and fostering a welcoming and engaging community for readers. He looks forward to connecting with readers and hearing their thoughts and feedback on the website.

You may also like

Essay Outline: Electoral Reforms in Pakistan:...

Exploring the Economic Potential of BRICS Countries:...

Art and Morality Essay Outline

Instruction in Youth is Like Engraving in Stone |...

Leave a Comment X

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Archived Press Releases

Archived News

Para Notícias en Español

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Announces Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion

The Justice Department today announced the formation of the Antitrust Division’s Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion (HCMC). The HCMC will guide the division’s enforcement strategy and policy approach in health care, including by facilitating policy advocacy, investigations and, where warranted, civil and criminal enforcement in health care markets.

“Every year, Americans spend trillions of dollars on health care, money that is increasingly being gobbled up by a small number of payers, providers and dominant intermediaries that have consolidated their way to power in communities across the country,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Led by Katrina Rouse, the task force will identify and root out monopolies and collusive practices that increase costs, decrease quality and create single points of failure in the health care industry.”

The HCMC will consider widespread competition concerns shared by patients, health care professionals, businesses and entrepreneurs, including issues regarding payer-provider consolidation, serial acquisitions, labor and quality of care, medical billing, health care IT services, access to and misuse of health care data and more. The HCMC will bring together civil and criminal prosecutors, economists, health care industry experts, technologists, data scientists, investigators and policy advisors from across the division’s Civil, Criminal, Litigation and Policy Programs, and the Expert Analysis Group, to identify and address pressing antitrust problems in health care markets.

The HCMC will be directed by Katrina Rouse, a long-serving antitrust prosecutor who joined the Antitrust Division in 2011. She previously served as Chief of the division’s Defense, Industrials and Aerospace Section, Assistant Chief of the Division’s San Francisco Office, a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and a Trial Attorney in the division’s Healthcare and Consumer Products Section. She holds degrees from Columbia University and Stanford Law School, and clerked for federal judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Rouse will serve concurrently as the division’s Deputy Director of Civil Enforcement and Special Counsel for Health Care.

The Antitrust Division welcomes input and information from the public, including from practitioners, patients, researchers, business owners and others who have direct insight into competition concerns in the health care industry. Members of the public can share their experiences with the Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion by visiting HealthyCompetition.gov . Where appropriate, the division will refer matters to other federal and state law enforcers.

Related Content

A former sales employee of a manufacturer and distributor of football helmets and other sports equipment pleaded guilty today for his role in three separate conspiracies — two conspiracies to...

The former owner of contractor companies that provided fuel truck services to the U.S. Forest Service’s wildfire fighters pleaded guilty today to conspiring to monopolize, rigging bids and allocating territories...

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Health and Human Services are extending the comment period for the Request for Information on Consolidation in Health ...

L.A. County puts 66 probation officers on leave for misconduct, including sexual abuse, excessive force

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles County Probation Department announced Monday that it has put 66 of its officers on administrative leave in the past five months for alleged offenses including excessive force, sexual abuse and drug possession.

The department said the announcement was intended as an effort to “regain public trust” as it roots out employees who engage in misconduct at the nation’s largest probation agency with 2,800 sworn officers.

“We are releasing this information in the spirit of greater transparency and to assure our stakeholders — especially the families of youths in our juvenile facilities — that we will not tolerate anything that impedes our mission to provide a safe, nurturing and structured environment for those entrusted to our care,” Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa said in a statement.

The probation officers placed on leave since January 1 were assigned to both the department’s adult and  juvenile operations .

Of the 66 officers cited, 39 were for issues of general misconduct, which includes suspected use of excessive force, child endangerment or abuse, possession of contraband, and negligent supervision, officials said.

In addition, 18 were put on leave for suspected sexual misconduct and nine for arrests unrelated to employment.

The Associated Press