A new code of ethics for NRPA - National Recreation and Park Association

There seems to be an increase in concern today about ethics, especially in the public sector. One reason is the high-profile ethical violations that we hear about in the news. The media routinely report cases of cheating or wasting public funds at all levels of government from the U.S. Congress to the local city hall. Dishonesty and abuse of power in government continue to erode public confidence and diminish public support of the services we provide. These ongoing violations of the public trust are a serious problem and have brought government employees and elected officials under very close public scrutiny.

This article will discuss what NRPA has done to address this issue and what can be done in our local communities to meet the growing concern about ethics. In the early 1970s, the leadership of NRPA recognized the need for a professional code of ethics. A 33-member Ethics Committee was appointed that was chaired by Charles Pezoldt and Robert Scharbert. The Committee conducted a feasibility study in 1973 that revealed that most state affiliates of NRPA did not have ethical codes and wanted NRPA to develop one. Over the next three years, the Committee conducted an extensive involvement process that included two national meetings each year and input from all NRPA branches and state associations. This effort resulted in several worthwhile outcomes. First, seven ethical principles were identified that were intended to have universal application regardless of the professional branch. Second, a few of the NRPA branches wrote separate sections of the code that pertained only to their specific branch. Third, a manual was prepared that outlined suggested procedures for establishing and enforcing a code of ethics at the state level. The overall outcome of the committee's effort was a model that was presented for adoption and enforcement by each state association. Several states have used the NRPA model over the past 18 years to create their own code of ethics.

In October 1991, NRPA President Joe O'Neill and Chair Beverly Brandes recognized the need to again raise the level of ethical consciousness within our profession. They asked Bob Toalson to chair a task force to develop a new code of ethics for NRPA. Every NRPA branch, section, and region was asked to appoint a member to the Task Force. The goal of this effort was to create a concise code of ethics that would be adopted by the Board of Trustees and apply to all NRPA members. This was not an easy task because ethics are so difficult to define and apply. Values and ethical principles are by nature very personal, and it is difficult to apply them to a large association of people, especially one as diverse as NRPA.

The first meeting of the new Code of Ethics Task Force was held at the NRPA Mid-Year Forum in January 1992. Prior to the meeting, Task Force members reviewed a range of codes of ethics. These included the existing NRPA Ethics Manual of Procedures and Suggested Principles; the codes of ethics of several NRPA affiliates including California, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio, Ontario, New York, Connecticut, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Wyoming, and Texas; the NTRS, CBM, APRS, and NSPR Codes of Ethics; and the ethical codes of several national associations including the International City Management Association, American Society of Public Administrators, Public Relations Society of America, American Camping Association, National Association of Counties, and Government Finance Officers Association. The review of existing codes and documents provided excellent resource material and background information for the Task Force to formulate the new NRPA Code of Ethics.

CODE OF ETHICS TASK FORCE

The efforts of the many groups and individuals who provided input and helped to create the NPRA Code of Ethics are greatly appreciated. Below is a list of those who served on the Task Force:

Bob Toalson, Task Force Chairman, Champaign Park District, Champaign, IL

Michelle Park, NRPA Staff Liaison, Arlington, VA

Dave Clark, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Albany, OR

Lori Daniel, Recreation and Leisure Services Dept. Aurora, CO

Cynthia Erho, Montague Parks and Recreation Commission, Greenfield, MA

Gerald S. Fain, Dept. of Movement, Health & Leisure, Boston University, Boston, MA

Harvey Faust, Parks and Recreation Department, Germantown, TN

Ronald Fehr, Parks and Recreation Department, Manhattan, KS

Regina Glover, Recreation Department, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL

Steve Hartman, Lisle Park District, Lisle, II

Walter Johnson, NRPA Great Lakes Office, Hoffman Estates, IL

Gwen Kermode, Natick Recreation and Human Services, Natick, MA

Ed Koenemann, Agency of Natural Resources, State Parks, Waterbury, VT

Miriam P. Lahey, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Lehman College, Bronx, NY

Michael Moran, Robert A. Lee Community Center, Iowa City, IA

Joseph O'Neill, Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, Mitchellville, MD

Joe Pattoni, Army Material Command Headquarters, Alexandria, VA

Don Reynolds, Parks and Recreation, Lander, WY

Gail Elder White, Parks and Recreation, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, NC

Dr. E. William Niepoth, Dept. of Recreation and Parks Management, California State University, Chico, CA

Dr. Charles Hartsoe, Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

Ken Winslade, Parks and Recreation Dept., New Westminster, BC

Trudye Johnson, Montgomery County Dept. of Recreation, Silver Spring, MD

Dr. Ira Shapiro, Chairperson, Department of Sport Management & Leisure Studies, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

There was general consensus at the first Task Force meeting that NRPA needed: 1) A short, concise statement of ethics; 2) Some method of enforcement; 3) To work with the ICMA effort on ethics; 4) To create a statement on ethics and professionalism in parks and recreation that could be sent to mayors, councils, etc.; 5) To inform the branches, affiliates, and other NRPA membership groups of the statement of ethics formulation effort and to invite their input. Chairman Toalson then divided the Task Force into four committees to develop different sections of the new Code. The committees included: 1) Preamble Committee (statement of principles), chaired by Charles Hartsoe; 2) Canons Committee (specific ethical obligations), chaired by Lori Daniel and Dave Clark; 3) Enforcement Committee, co-chaired by Ira Shapiro and Mike Moran; and 4) Internal Relations Committee, chaired by Gail White and Ron Fehr. The committees spent considerable time and effort developing their part of the Code, and Bob Toalson worked hard to combine their work into a single document.

The Task Force completed a draft Code of Ethics at the 1992 NRPA Congress in Cincinnati, which included three separate sections: preamble, canons, and enforcement. The preamble was a brief introduction to the Code that outlined the purpose of our profession and affirmed the importance of professionally trained and responsible personnel. The canons set forth the ethical principles and obligations that members of NRPA would be expected to abide by and uphold. The enforcement section provided a process for investigating and determining whether a member had violated the code; afforded members a fair opportunity to be heard throughout the process; and specified sanctions for violation of the canons, up to and including expulsion from NRPA.

In early January 1993, the draft Code of Ethics was sent to all NRPA branches, sections, regional councils, and state affiliates for their comments and recommendations. After the comments were received, the Task Force met again at the 1993 Congress in San Jose, California, to incorporate the suggestions and revise the draft. While there was general support for the preamble and canons, most state affiliates and other membership groups did not support the enforcement section of the Code. Most groups were concerned about NRPA's ability to defend legal challenges to the punitive actions taken to enforce the Code. Because of legal and other concerns, the Task Force dropped the enforcement section. However, the Task Force recommended that the Board of Trustees consider appointing a new task force to reexamine the need for an enforcement procedure in the future if membership concerns could be addressed. The preamble and canons were then consolidated into a single page document and final changes were made to simplify and clarify the language.

Following completion of their work, the Task Force submitted the Code of Ethics to the NRPA Board of Trustees for their review and input. After making minor modifications, the Trustees adopted the final Code at their last meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Figure One shows the Code of Ethics adopted by the Trustees.

FIGURE 1: NRPA Professional Code of Ethics

The National Recreation and Park Association has provided leadership to the nation in fostering the expansion of recreation and parks. NRPA has stressed the value of recreation, both active and passive, for individual growth and development. Its members are dedicated to the common cause of assuring that people of all ages and abilities have the opportunity to find the most satisfying use of their leisure time and enjoy an improved quality of life.

The Association has consistently affirmed the importance of well informed and professionally trained personnel to continually improve the administration of recreation and park programs. Members of NRPA are encouraged to support the efforts of the Association and profession by supporting state affiliate and national activities and participating in continuing education opportunities, certification, and accreditation.

Membership in NRPA carries with it special responsibilities to the public at large, and to the specific communities and agencies in which recreation and park services are offered. As a member of the National Recreation and Park Association, I accept and agree to abide by this Code of Ethics and pledge myself to:

Adhere to the highest standards of integrity and honesty in all public and personal activities to inspire public confidence and trust.

Strive for personal and professional excellence and encourage the professional development of associates and students.

Strive for the highest standards of professional competence, fairness, impartiality, efficiency, effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.

Avoid any interest or activity that is in conflict with the performance of job responsibilities.

Promote the public interest and avoid personal gain or profit from the performance of job duties and responsibilities.

Support equal employment opportunities.

The Task Force intentionally limited the Code of Ethics to one page to make it more concise, readable, and suitable for public display. The Code is now available at NRPA headquarters, and all NRPA members are encouraged to order the Code and place it in full public view.

The NRPA Code of Ethics includes basic principles that are critical to long-term professional and personal success. Our relationships and accomplishments are largely dependent on the principles of honesty, fairness, competence, and integrity. Short-term gains are possible by cheating or deceiving others, but eventually people find out what's going on and integrity is lost. When integrity is lost, the trust and confidence of those who make success possible is destroyed. The public, our family, and our co-workers will support decisions and actions that are in harmony with these unchanging principles.

Some who favor enforcement of the Code of Ethics argue that if no punitive action is taken when a member violates the code, it has little value. They point out that several other national associations successfully administer enforcement procedures. Others enforce their codes because the behavior of each member reflects on their national association. When a member violates the law or an accepted ethical principle, it diminishes the integrity and respect of their association and profession. They further suggest that a professional association has the right and even the duty to enforce its own ethical code to protect the reputation of the association and its members.

Those who oppose enforcement argue that ethics are too subjective and costly to enforce. Every suspected violation needs to be thoroughly investigated, and every decision for discipline can be challenged. They believe that NRPA does not have the time or the resources available to effectively administer enforcement provisions, especially when one considers all the other important goals that NRPA is trying to accomplish.

Focus on Educating Members

In my opinion, NRPA is not ready to enforce the new Code of Ethics at this time, but should seriously consider enforcement in the future. For now, we should focus on educating members on the value of ethical behavior rather than enforcement procedures. Several excellent sessions on ethics have been offered at recent NRPA Congresses. Additional workshops would provide a forum for further debate of the enforcement issue and reinforce the importance of ethics within our profession. NRPA will continue to grow and at some point will probably have the resources needed for enforcement. We will then need to decide if enforcement is high enough on the priority list to implement.

With or without enforcement procedures, a code of ethics will never address every principle or behavior. There will always be borderline situations and gray areas that make decisions difficult. The decisions we make are based on our personal values and character. If a person has grown up believing nothing is wrong with cheating, a code of ethics alone may be of little value.

But an ethical code can establish principles and expectations to help guide our decisions and actions. A code can remind us of the values and personal traits that govern all people who value truth and integrity. If we have the desire and ability to make these basic human principles part of our character, we can inspire trust and achieve long-term success.

Ethics also need to be addressed within the public agencies for which most of us work. It is at the local level where the real enforcement occurs if someone does something unethical. Local ethics policies help establish expectations and limits for public employees and elected officials. One example is the ethics policy at the City of Albany, Oregon, which deals with the acceptance of gifts, conflicts of interest, conversion of city property for private use, outside employment, political activities, and the use of confidential information. As a companion to the ethics policy, a one-page Value Statements document was created to identify the public's expectations of city employees.

The Value Statements consist of short paragraphs on the following topics: 1) Open and Honest Government; 2) Customer Service; 3) Fiscal Responsibility; 4) Personal Honesty and Integrity; 5) Professionalism and Teamwork; and 6) A Humane and Diverse Organization. The Ethics Policy and Value Statements have proven to be valuable ethical guidelines for all City of Albany employees and elected officials.

How do we know if a decision is unethical? One of my older brothers once told me that if someone wants you do something and you're not sure if it's right, listen carefully to the reason for the request. If you hear the words "just this once," "no one will ever know," or "everyone is doing it," you may have a problem. If you're still not sure, ask the person you most trust and respect for his/her advise. Now NRPA members have one more tool to help them make those difficult decisions: the new NRPA Code of Ethics.

FIGURE 2:

In its twenty-first year, the Citizen Board Member (CBM) Code of Ethics represents the interests and concerns of citizen supporters of parks and recreation and NRPA. Borrowing from the National Association of School Boards, the Code was written and adopted in 1974.

National Recreation and Park Association Citizen-Board Member Branch

CODE OF ETHICS

Parks & Recreation Board Members

As a Park and Recreation Board member, representing all of the residents, I recognize that:

1. I have been entrusted to provide park and recreation services to my community.

2. These services should be available to all residents regardless of age, sex, race, religion, national origin, physical or mental limitation.

3. While honest differences of opinion may develop, I will work harmoniously with other Board members to assure residents the services they require.

4. I will invite all residents to express their opinions so I may be properly informed prior to making my decisions. I will make them based solely upon the facts available to me. I will support the final decisions of the Board.

5. I must devote the time, study, and thought necessary to carry out my duties.

6. The Board members establish the policy and the staff is responsible for administering the policies of the Board.

7. I have no authority outside of the proper meetings of the Board.

8. All Board meetings should be open to the public except as provided by law.

COPYRIGHT 1995 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group