Article
III
"In those
situations where the law is not clear, the best interests of IMRF participants
must be served. Conscience is critical. Good ends never justify immoral
means."
Increasingly, we as a society look at the law to define right and
wrong, moral and immoral; the notion that law sets the floor rather
than the ceiling receives little credibility. By the same token, the
tendency to focus on the law leads to a withering of interest and concern
for the ethical. The implicit assumption increasingly becomes that,
if government has not forbidden it, it must be acceptable. This results
in increased dependence on legal process to define the limits, and
the game becomes one of avoidance and loophole closing. The result
is fundamental change in the mores of society.
Trustees and staff must decide, consciously and deliberately, what
role ethical considerations will play in the decision making they are
required to undertake. What is legal and what is ethical are not synonymous.
If we tend to resort as trustees and staff to legality as our birth
line, then ethics will wane and the legal technician will flower. If
we take this route we are not being ethical.
We avoid responsibility we should not avoid. Perhaps we would not
be judged to be immoral but certainly we would be amoral or lacking
moral fiber.
Maintaining the trust of those we serve requires more than adherence
to minimal legal standards.
Rules
and Interpretations
Rule 3.01 Trustees and staff must call upon the cornerstones
of fair play in evaluating every decision made as a trustee or staff
member. When the law is unclear, the decision must rest with the analysis
of the evidence viewed against the backdrop of one’s conscience.
A fiduciary relationship exists where there has been some special confidence
reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good
faith and in regard to the one reposing confidence.
| 
