from the East Valley (AZ) Tribune:

Commentary
Don't repeat Enron's ethics approach
By Mark Scarp, Tribune Columnist
April 30, 2006
The people who ran Enron Corp. had a code of ethics. Really. They did.
Originally reported by thesmokinggun.com, it was a 64-page document
that could be ignored — and it was.

Scottsdale's City Council considers Tuesday a proposed code for city
officials. Enron's experience teaches that merely having a code
doesn't make an organization ethical, any more than calling a country
the People's Democratic Republic of Wherever doesn't make it so.
Having a code states that Scottsdale wants to be ethical, but there's
more to actually being ethical.

According to Stuart C. Gilman, former president of the Washington,
D.C.-based Ethics Resource Center, most businesses want to do what's
right. But Enron, he wrote in 2002, is an excellent example of how
susceptible an organization can be to "ethical land mines."

"To be effective, codes of conduct need to be actual living documents,
not just framed pieces of paper hanging on company walls," Gilman
wrote. "Such codes must be encouraged and valued at the highest
levels."

So these have to be living documents or they're worthless.

There are at least two kinds of such ethics codes: One is advisory,
generally regarded as the standard for creating a culture of ethical
behavior in a particular environment. Another type also lists
consequences for unethical behavior.

The council will be considering this second type on Tuesday. It calls
for frequent ethics education sessions for city officials, and new
employees must get their first exposure to ethics training within 90
days of hire.

Scottsdale is not Chicago; it lacks a reputation for unethical
behavior in city government. And already any Scottsdale city employee
who behaves inappropriately or irresponsibly faces discipline or
dismissal — despite the city currently having no code. But
implementing ethics education is certainly better than not. And if
more city officials know that it is the right thing, the ethical
thing, to treat the public as their ultimate superior, then perhaps an
ethics code and accompanying training will have been worthwhile.

The proposed code also governs council members themselves. But what
happened when they made the rules for themselves in Washington? Three
words: House Ethics Committee.

With its history of wristslaps and outright ignoring congressmen's
ethical shenanigans, that committee is an example of what happens when
foxes get to make the rules governing their behavior around chickens.
You can find foxes who do the right thing. But it's not the way to
bet. Remember Enron?

Besides, we already have a fine ethical enforcement mechanism for
elected officials requiring no ethics code at all. It's called an
election.