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.