Integrity is neither private nor public.

     When did we get into the habit of ignoring the blatant indiscretions of our public figures? Many of my peers pass it off as normal, saying we only hear about the ones that get caught, implying or even saying up front that all public leaders behave badly as if that makes it okay. Too often we excuse bad sexual behavior because some believe men can't control their physical urges.
     New York Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted today that he lied to the nation a week ago when he denied sending an explicit photo to a woman who is not his wife. He made up a story saying he was the victim of someone that had 'hacked' his computer and sent it in his name. After he took 'full responsibility' for taking the pictures and sending them, he went on to say that he would not resign because he doesn't think he "did anything that violated any law or rule of the house" or anything to compromise his 'oath of office to uphold the Constitution'.  Excuse me?  How does an outright lie to the public not become glaring evidence that he has compromised his ability to even make/keep an oath ? 
     Why would we accept that one can behave one way in private and another in public?  It is unacceptable to me that we don't set a standard for our 'public servants' private behavior at the same level we expect of their public behavior. I don't believe anyone is perfect nor do I expect it, but the level of a person's deceptive behavior in private should give us a glimpse at the potential of deception in public.
    I have a favorite quote that sums up my feelings about the people that I want to serve my community.
'The true character of a man is determined by what he would do if he knew no one would find out.' -Unknown

Anybody there?

     My coworkers and I received an email about a week ago from the district's main office. The email warned us that sometime in the near future there would be an article in our local newspaper which might include our personal information: name, job description, date of employment, salary, as well as our W-2 information, etc. By law the district is required to provide the information when requested as part of the "Freedom of Information Act".  You see, I am a "public employee" and the newspaper sent an official request for the information. 
     I have nothing to hide so why does it bother me that my name might be published?  I worked hard to create a reputation based on integrity, the quality of my work and my work ethic. During my last eight years in the public arena I've worked hard to maintain it. Everyday I answer calls from angry people that make assumptions based strictly on the public status of my position.  I have been able to maintain a professional demeanor in the words I choose and the tone I use as well as by how quickly I respond as I attempt to help every person I encounter whether by phone, email or in person.  I'm certain some calls are directed to me because I have been fairly successful at calming situations and I leave people knowing that I genuinely want to help them, whether or not I can deliver the result they desire. 
     Some callers don't ask for help, they just want to vent their anger.  They insist on remaining anonymous, begin the conversation with a raised voice and don't pause to breathe. I have been verbally assaulted, degraded and given directions for intimate acts that are physically impossible to follow, usually by people that have never met me nor heard more than an introduction from me, .........if they listened to it. I am regularly reminded by callers that 'they pay my salary' while my status as a taxpayer is irrelevant.
     A very large number of people that potentially may have access to my name, job description and earnings, don't care about my capabilities or my work ethic. It's been predetermined they don't exist. People aren't going to ask if I show up on time and work hard from the time I arrive until the time I leave. They aren't going to take the time to find out if I really care about my work or if I perform efficiently and effectively.  They assume I don't.
     In the newspaper article they won't include information about the quality or quantity of my work or the hours I donate every week. It isn't going to list the processes I've created that streamline production and save the taxpayers thousands of dollars every year. It won't detail the amount of work I process nor will it mention the additional sizable projects with quick deadlines our department tackles with strict instructions that we are not to take time away from our regular duties and the budget doesn't include overtime.
     I see the other side. I have been on the public side of the counter in many government/public offices. I have witnessed groups of people standing together, chatting, seeming to ignore John and Jane Q. Public while we wait patiently and sometimes not-so-patiently to be assisted.  As a member of the general public with an enlightened perspective, I understand those people are likely not the ones assigned to customer service or they may be enjoying an earned break in their duties, or they may not even be on the clock.  From my experience in customer service, I also understand perception.  If I were supervising them, I would insist they not stand and hold lengthy conversations (even about business) in view of an already anxious general public (even 'off the clock').  Misperception creates a suspicious public and damages good will.
    I appreciate my job, and I make sure I work at a level well above just earning my paycheck. The article won't reveal that or the many people with whom I work that feel as I do, and work diligently to do an exceptional job in spite of the challenges and negativity we face every day.