First Candidate Statement....

Contaact me by phone at: 785-3176 or cell: (559) 280-6820

Hopefully, you have all received the Candidates First Statement. At this time I would like to address the nature and content of those statements.

First let me say that my opponent's statements were well written and worthy of a serious read. As a former Sea Rancher of the Year, Dibby Tyler quite appropriately listed her years of meritorious service and admirable accomplishments. It was very impressive. Dibby would make a wonderful addition to the already fine group of board members we currently have. I strongly urge everyone, to cast one of their two votes for Dibby Tyler. Obviously, since it's my hope to join her on the board, I would appreciate receiving the other.

Derek Bray and Chris Beach took the opportunity to list the positions they have taken or will take on issues which focus on items such as membership dues and fire prevention. As indicated in their statements, their perspectives are from those of an engineer and a builder. I chose a different life path. My perspective is from that of an "ethics practioner," which by training and education (Josephson Institute of Ethics, 1994) is my profession. Rather than list my positions, I chose to outline the process I will use to establish those positions.

You need and deserve to know that.

Though I was specific in my statement as to what that process involved, let me be more so now. I am an ethics practioner, not an academic, however, the 3 step decision making process I use is based on enduring ethical philosophies established centuries ago. I'd like to share them with you.

Step 1

Ethical decisions take into account the interest and well being of all those likely to be affected by the decision and who have a moral claim on the decision maker to make the decision wisely. This is known in the "business" as a Stakeholder Analysis.

The underlying philosophy of this step is the Golden Rule. Lest anyone think the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity, consider that one of the first times we see it is in 500 BC, when Confucius says,

"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

175 years later in 325 BC, Aristotle said,

"We should behave to others as we wish them to behave to us."

There are more examples to be sure, but the point is simply this. The Golden Rule in one form or another is part of nearly all major religions. In addition, the fact that it is embraced by people of considerable intelligence and divergent outlooks is evidence that it is an enduring moral truth.

Step 2

Ethical decisions put the core ethical values of honesty, integrity, respect, compassion, fairness and justice which are common to democratic societies above others, such as those engendered by self interest or personal bais.

The philosophical underpinning of this step is Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. Kant asserts that ethical values are moral truths which require absolute adherence in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. In other words, and to add color to this rather drab academic description, we are required to honor these principles come "hell or high water."

Step 3

There may come a time when we must choose between competing ethical values described in step 2. When that time comes, we are obligated to choose that value which produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

The philosophy here is Consequentialism, also referrred to as Utilitarianism. This philosophy was espoused by people such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They argued that the propriety of a decision was contingent on the consequences it produced.

I realize that this decision making process is somewhat complex and nuanced. But, so is being a Sea Ranch Board Member.

I believe that Derek Bray and Chris Beach are qualified to be board members and will be good ones if elected. They are one, an engineer and the other a builder. By training, they also tend to be pragmatists. As such, their first instinct will often be to get as much information as possible and then based on that information, do what works. As a general rule, I find that to be an admirable trait.

However, I believe I offer a significant and distinct alternative to the strictly pragmatic. Allow me to illustrate the alternative and draw the distinction.

As an ethicist by training, I will have a tendency not to do what works, but to do what is right.

Experience has taught me that what works is not always what is right (see Balco, Enron, Mark McGwire, Marion Jones and Ken Lay). What is right is also not always what is obvious. Often, it is complex and nuanced, requiring a decision making process and mind set that accommodates those complexities and nuances. In addition, though these concepts are not always mutually exclusive, many times a decision maker must choose between what works and what is right. I'm confident you know what my choice will be.

It has been written that principles are only meaningful if we're willing to stand by them when they become inconvenient. The test of a person's ethical integrity comes when the price of doing the right thing is more than they want to pay. Rest assured that if elected to the Sea Ranch Board of Directors, I'll pay the price.

Please also understand that I believe both Derek and Chris are principled. In addition, I don't take the position that I'm more principled. That would be unnaceptable, inaccurate and disrespectful.

It's just that I think ethical principles are more a part of my decision making "DNA."

My first statement was about my decision making process. As I stated earlier, you needed and deserved to know what that process was. In my second statement, I'll state my positions on fire prevention, membership dues, the budget, bluff top erosion, in addition to numerous others. You need and deserve to know that as well.