Taking advantage of drought rebate system is ethically barren

Last summer, California Gov. Jerry Brown urged residents of the state to conserve water during what's turned out to be a severe drought. His goal was to curtail water usage by 20 percent, but the reported results of the voluntary cutback amounted to only a 9 percent savings. As a result, the state starting offering sizable monetary incentives for homeowners to replace water-thirsty lawns. Some payments were as high as $6,000, at $2 per square foot of lawn replaced.

Homeowners seized the opportunity and soon the initial funds set aside were depleted. More money was added to the kitty and more residents applied for rebates. A reader in northern California writes that one of her neighbors is going to extremes to take advantage of the program.

"I live in drought-plagued northern California," D.M. writes. "Since the situation is so severe, some communities give stipends if homeowners uproot lawn areas and plant them with something less water-dependent."

A neighbor has told her he intends to spend $200 to plant a lawn. He'll then apply for a rebate of $1,200 to rip out the new grass -- yielding a profit of $1,000 for removing a lawn he never intended to have in the first place.

D.M. finds his actions both "cockamamie" and unethical. "If nothing else, it's bad karma," she writes.

I'm not sure how karma works in northern California, so I can't speak to that, but D.M. makes a good point. Even if her neighbor is not doing anything illegal based on how the rebate system works, he's certainly violating the spirit of the plan: to replace existing lawns with ground cover that needs less water.

It's often a challenge to make sure those who take advantage of such government programs are truly deserving. In the late 1990s, after the Red River flooded parts of North Dakota, residents were invited to relocate after utilities had been shut down so public works employees could dig in and get everyone back online. Relief agencies and other non-profits set up food banks and clothing drives to help the displaced.

However, as long as residents lined up for relief could prove they lived in the towns affected, not all were asked for proof that their specific home had no utilities. Those who accepted relief services they didn't deserve meant there was less for those actually in need.

Is D.M.'s neighbor acting illegally? Probably not. Are his actions unethical? Certainly. The right thing to do would be for her neighbor to simply live with his landscaping as is, rather than spending a small amount of money to get a bigger rebate.

If California municipalities want to ensure that such misguided efforts don't become commonplace, and to make sure their resources can actually achieve the intended goal of conserving water, the right thing to do is create a mechanism whereby homeowners must prove they haven't worked the system by planting a lawn with the sole intention of fleecing the state. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Can you tell a book by its cover blurbs?

If you've ever picked up a hardback or paperback book, you've no doubt read the cover blurbs -- short endorsements, usually from other writers, extolling what's good about the book and why you should read it. But what should a reader expect after reading these always glowing snippets?

Occasionally, I'm asked to write blurbs. After the most recent request, I indicated that I might consider the assignment. The author then asked, "What would you like to read to consider doing so?"

"The book," I responded. He promptly sent me a pdf of the page proofs, also indicating that he would have gladly sent just the introduction and a chapter or two. After reading the book, which turned out to be good, I sent him an endorsement. In thanking me, the author wrote, "You may be the first person in history to actually read the book for which you write a blurb."

He was joking, of course. Plenty of other people endorsing books take the time to read them before producing a blurb. I like to think that those who've blurbed my books in the past read the manuscripts I sent. However, it's not uncommon for blurbs to be written by people who never read the book. On occasion, published blurbs are not even the work of the person to whom they're ascribed. Some blurbers demand payment.

The right thing for authors and publishers to do is make every effort to use only blurbs from contributors who commit to reading the book. Knowingly publishing endorsements from people who haven't done so -- or even written their own blurb -- may be de rigueur in the publishing industry, but it's dishonest. At best, it's a hollow effort to help prospective readers make informed decisions.

As for readers, since there's no guarantee of baloney-proof blurbs, the right thing to do is take them with a grain of salt. After all, author and publisher are unlikely to use anything but positive blurbs on a book cover.

Better to dump the practice altogether if no effort is made to ensure that those endorsing books start doing so honestly. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Excessive commencement cheering should not spell jail time

I've been to my fair share of commencement ceremonies. They're joyous, but usually very long events, often held outdoors in hot weather, or in humid auditoriums. Administrators regularly exhort graduates, their friends and family to keep their whooping and hollering in check. Some even warn that excessive cheering will lead to eviction from the event.

Every year, news reports spotlight overly enthusiastic supporters slammed with citations for disturbing the peace. Several years ago, I wrote about a couple of incidents that resulted in such arrests. In one case, administrators withheld diplomas from students whose families were deemed to have crossed the line.

While I think such responses are excessive, if the rules make clear that attendees can be ejected for excessive cheering, they should abide by the rules or expect to suffer the consequences.

Legal charges do seem over the top, though. And holding a student in cap and gown responsible for the behavior of family and friends in the stands? That's punishing the wrong person for the infraction.

Reports hit the news a few weeks ago of yet another commencement disturbance, this one in Senatobia, Miss. Arrest warrants were issued to four people for excessive cheering at the May 21 high school commencement ceremony. The Associated Press reported that Senatobia's school superintendent Jay Foster, "said that over the past few years, the yelling and screaming at graduation has become too disruptive, and made the ceremony unbearable." The AP also reported that charges brought against the revelers could result in "a fine of up to $500 and jail time of up to six months."

Foster acknowledged that he got "a lot of negative phone calls and emails" about the crackdown, but added that he'd also received a lot of support for his action. Support or no, less than three weeks later the complaints were withdrawn.

Foster and the school district did the right thing by withdrawing the complaints. Weighing the severity of the action, they wisely chose not to have the punishment exceed the "crime."

For the mother of one of those charged for cheering on his little sister at the ceremony, dismissal of the charges was not enough.

"I'm not done with him," Linda Walker told the AP, referring to Foster. Walker said she was talking to a lawyer and "it's going to cost them some money."

Just as the Senatobia school district has every right to enforce the rules it sets for commencement activities, Walker has every right to file suit over the incident, although doing so also seems excessive and another move that diverts attention from where it should be.

Unruly cheerers, the school district's actions in bringing charges rather than trying to better supervise graduation ceremonies (as hundreds of other schools do across the country) and Walker's actions detract from what should be at the heart of commencement: celebrating students' accomplishments.

The right thing is for attendees to tamp down their exuberance, administrators to find better ways to manage such events, and students to take pride in earning their diplomas. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of  The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is a lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. 

Follow him on Twitter: @jseglin 

Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@comcast.net. 

(c) 2014 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.