Category: Travel Policy

Interview with Dr. K.T. Connor on ethics and public life

Dr. K.T. Connor was a Senior Adjunct Professor with the MPPA program until recently, for over a decade and brings a wealth of experience in ethics, business as well as public leadership. She served as the Managing Director of Applied Axiometrics. She is the head of a virtual collaboration of consultants using decision-theory-based assessments in selection, development, coaching, team building, and succession planning. In this short interview, she shares some insights into public leadership, ethics and her work and association with former (late) President Jimmy Carter.

Jere, KT Connor & Jimmy Carter

 

  • Tell us about your association with Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center 

 

When I lived in Georgia, I was often driving from my island off the coast, to the Carter Center in Atlantic, for both conferences and then meetings.  And I was so delighted to learn more and more about what the Carter Center was doing, and why.  That’s when I became so impressed with the humanity and value-based approach of Jimmy Carter.

I continued to learn more about Carter when I would often attend his gatherings in Lake Tahoe, San Diego, and of course, Atlanta at the Center.  It was so easy to relax at his events, and he was open to all of us.

I was so glad to get to see how down to earth Carter was.  When I went to various places with him and others, he was so open to all there.  And he still invited us down to his hometown, and it was so clear he was so much a part of the community.

One trip I flew from Atlanta to the west coast with all attending the special event at Lake Tahoe.  He was so good going all over the plane and talking to all of us.  He was relaxed and open and walked up and down the aisle to have a chat with all of us.

 

 

  • Carter is often spoken about as an ethical leader, do you agree?   Can you elaborate on why you agree or disagree? 

 

I certainly agree that he was an ethical leader.  I followed his role as President of the United States, and saw that he valued service above self-interest.  Yes, that often resulted in looking less effective now and then, but from what I saw, it was consistent with his desire to serve.  He was open even to those who ran against him, as Gerald Ford’s son notes at Jimmy’s funeral.  (He shared that Gerald and Jimmy became good friends, even though Carter had gotten more votes on the election than Ford.)  Even when President, he showed he had principled leadership, and valued decency and justice as well as caring for others.  Because of the complexity of US Presidency, his caring became even more obvious when he developed the Carter Center.

When he was no longer President, he decided to maintain his desire to serve, and value all, and created an impressive goal for the Carter Center.   He developed an organization to work to help even powerless people, to have them have skills, knowledge, and resources to improve their own lives.  This improvement included disease prevention, democracy increase, and human rights safeguard.

He also was known to commit to truth, not lying, and to the importance of improving oneself, as well as helping others do so.

 

  • What aspects of public life today are different from say, the 1960 or 70s when Carter was active, politically? 

 

When he was active politically, he was still learning how to serve others.  He also absorbed values through his church to care for others and oneself, and to promote peace.  He did now and then make a decision that did not turn out as he expected, and he was seen as not one to reelect.  As our country grew, much energy went to divisiveness and race division.  But gradually we as a country tried to bring all together.   Carter’s decision did contribute some of that.

Carter’s involvement with his work at the Center, on the other hand, showed what he had learned, in order to be more effective with his goals.  His dealing with helping people in various countries, including our own, created wide efforts to help others.

 

  • Does public service motivation impact ethical values?  

 

I feel it does if it focuses not only on oneself, and one’s ability to lead and serve, but also on others, especially those in need.

One of the things we learn from good servants is something we can learn from Jimmy.  Power is often maintained to be desired by many.  But Carter slowly showed this was not why he served.

He seemed to know that some power was appropriate. But also it seems he also felt that respect for others, and even care for others, was essential.   In no time that I saw him, did he show he was worth bowing to.  Rather, he could be seen as so humble, so many times.

This should be a model for all in public service.  It is a real service.  Yes, they should make sure no one violates the ability to provide the service required.  But they should also care not only for themselves, but definitely, also for others.

 

  • What are specific ways in which Carter’s life can serve as an example for young public servants today?

One major thing I feel is to be sensitive to bringing people together, not apart.  This can be a challenge now and then, but they should also be sure to build the skills needed to meet the goals of their position.  But public service is service to others, to those who depend on the service.  Public ethics lets the public servant value being socially constructive, idealistic, altruistic, and creative.  This will enrich our world and hopefully bring us all closer together.

 

  1. Any other thoughts on ethics and public service?

I feel someone in public service deserves to be comfortable with themselves, and value themselves.  I also feel, however, that real public service is not to just focus on power.  It is not being seen as needing to have others feel less about themselves, so that the servant can be seen as more perfect.   Real service is reaching out to all, especially those for whom they are assigned, to help them grow and perform.  And it is good that they did this also for others.  Jimmy Carter definitely showed that this was good to do.

 

Innovative solutions in travel policy

John Marroquin

The Republic of Canada is known for having some of the strictest laws for immigration and visitation for foreign nationals who have been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), or equivalent misconduct in their respective countries. With the steadily rising number of tourists year by year and the number of foreign nationals being barred from entry rising exponentially in step, the amount of lost revenue cannot be ignored. At this point, a travel policy law that was initially created for the betterment and protection of the Canadian public is actually actively hindering international commerce.

Creating-Travel-Policy-That-Works
source: data-basics.com

The Travel Leniency Act (TLA) is meant to remedy this, by relaxing the stringent policy that defines “serious criminality”, more specifically regarding offenses that were not violent or felonious in nature. The introduction of this law as an addendum to the current immigration framework would further stimulate the tourist industry, create more jobs, and entice visitors to contribute to Canada’s flourishing GDP.

Canadian History and Status Quo 

The governing legislature that dictates current immigration procedures in Canada is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (S.C. 2001, c. 27). Passed in 2002, this act furnishes foreign nationals and immigrants with specific rights and limitations and details the minimum qualifications for admission, residency, and refugee status. In 2018, an amendment to the IRPA imposed tighter restrictions upon those who have been accused of acts that would be considered “Serious Criminality” under Canadian law. The Division 4 Inadmissibility section of the IPRA states that grounds for permanent residents or foreign nationals being denied admission include:

  1.  having been convicted of an offense outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
  2. committing an act outside Canada that is an offense in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

Note that in Canadian law, a summary conviction and an indictable offense are equivalent to the United States Misdemeanor and Felony charges respectfully. Under Canadian criminal law, a DUI is a “hybrid” charge. No different from a US wobbler charge, a hybrid charge can be either a summary conviction or indictable offense in Canada, and therefore is treated at the highest level.

In Canadian Criminal law, the DUI equivalent is “Operation while Impaired”. The offense is described thusly:

320.14 (1) Everyone commits an offense who

(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;

320.19 (1) Every person who commits an offense under subsection

320.14(1) or 320.15(1) is guilty of(a) an indictable offense

The only remedy at this time is to prove that criminal rehabilitation has occurred. Rehabilitation applications can be filed 5 years after sentences have been completed, so long as no subsequent convictions have occurred.

Law Detail

DEFINITIONS

Serious Criminality – Criminal behavior that resulted in the conviction of an indictable offense or equivalent. Includes summary convictions that were violent in nature.

Non-Violent Crime – Includes crimes of petty theft, burglary, driving under the influence. It does not include crimes that would constitute a threat to national security.

Tourist – Any foreign national who enters the Republic of Canada with no intention of being a permanent resident or citizen.

Pardon – A written, legal indemnification of prior crimes issued expressly by the Canadian Minister of travel for foreign nationals.

LEGISLATURE

The Travel Leniency Act will serve as an addendum to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and shall address and reform the current travel inadmissibility standards.

WHEREAS the current definition of “serious criminality” is found wanting and hinders international tourism and travel to the Republic of Canada and

WHEREAS potentially non-violent summary convictions such as “Operation while impaired” or similar charges for foreign nationals are treated with equivalency to indictable offenses Therefore

PASSED BY PARLIMENTAL REVIEW, LET IT BE ENACTED THAT:

SECTION I. The definition of “serious criminality” for the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Act will no longer include summary convictions or equivalent changes when and if they are proven

  • To have been non-violent in nature;
  • To be offenses that are not a threat to national security;
  • To have been formally pardoned by the Canadian government under current law;

SECTION II. Shorten the term of any application to the Minister for a pardon term to 2 years after initial conviction or sentencing. This includes any offense that meets the above criteria. Any conviction that is older than 5 years will be considered rehabilitated by way of time passed. Applications will take no longer than 5 business days to be processed from the date of submittal.

SECTION III. Temporary Residency Permits will be issued with expediency to foreign nationals intending to stay for a term no fewer than 3 days, and no more than 10. Formal reporting is not required for tourists who provide

  1. Reasonable proof of a duration of stay not exceeding 3 days
  2. Obvious intent to vacate the nation within the next 24 hours

SECTION IV. Formally deputized officers of the Canadian Border Services Agency will prove the veracity of claims during an investigation, and records of the investigation will be held for a period not exceeding 3 years from the date of recording.

Adoption Procedures

The TLA will shorten the timeframe required between the year the offense occurred, and the execution of this change will result in a higher rate of applications. As a result, the Minister will be able to delegate signature authority to members of their staff to mitigate the higher volume.

Destination Canada, the Canadian Government’s official tourism website, will release a statement of the law in laymen’s terms to clarify the ramifications of this act on foreign nationals. This will be particularly good optics with the United States and China, both of which comprise the bulk of tourists visiting Canada.

Anticipated Response

Between 2018-2019 36,145,370 foreigners entered the county, and of this 8,781 were detained, which comprises .024% of the 2018-2019 year. From 2007-2016 a total of 267,449 foreigners were denied entry from Canada. In 2019 313,580 immigrants were entering Canada for various purposes and from a variety of countries.

Tourism represents a significant and lucrative source of revenue for Canada, bringing in $33.9 billion within the first nine months of 2019, and boosted Canada’s GDP by 5.9% from the previous year. Tourism accounted for 750,000 jobs in 2018, and a record-breaking 21.13 million tourists traveled to Canada from across the globe in this same period.

Based on these figures, over nine years (2007-2016) nearly $430 million in tourist revenue were not captured, and nearly 10,000 jobs in the tourist industry were not realized. Although this may seem like a small leakage, the steadily increasing numbers year by year present a unique opportunity for the people of Canada to stimulate local economies with travel. This will be a very positive outcome, and the provinces will reap the rewards, creating more jobs.