The Nevada Center for Public Ethics, a group presided over by UNLV ethics professor Craig Walton, has developed a proposed "candidate's pledge." Professor Walton reports the group has sent copies to all Nevada political party chairs, as well as to the five announced candidates for governor.

"All those who send us a signed copy will have their names posted on our Web site, www.nevada-ethics.org," Mr. Walton said Thursday. "The pledge contains the seven principles of public ethics we have developed over the past year. These are not partisan principles, but instead speak to the working fundamentals of responsible citizens and their chosen or appointed representatives."

The document starts out: "I. The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights form the foundation for free and equal citizens to authorize persons and choose policies and rules under which we live."

It does not state that these are the inviolable law of the land, mind you. They are merely a "foundation." Even the most weasly of the, "Times have changed; it's a living document" gang could surely agree with that.

The pledge goes on to support open meetings and public records, though modified by a loophole general enough to leave plenty of room for maneuver, that being: "Only when the public agrees through established laws and institutions to accept secrecy or sealed records can they be closed."

What does that mean, precisely? Don't many established institutions err on the side of secrecy? Does the public "agree" to this precedent merely by their failure to turn out with torches and pitchforks?

The heart of the proposed pledge, however, lies in articles III through V:

"III. A public office is a public trust. By accepting election or appointment, or by taking the oath of office, we promise to listen and weigh the concerns of all those in our community, rich or poor, and to work for policies and rules which provide for the safety and well-being of all the people.

"IV. A public official is expected by law and by virtue of the public's consent to be governed by just and fair laws, to exercise authority with independence of judgment.

"V. The test of that is whether a reasonable person, having heard all sides appealing for or against an action, would judge the chosen action to be reasonable and fair for the sake of all. ..."

The problem with any such well-meaning pledge, of course, is that those not particularly concerned with ethics will sign it in a snap, since it "looks good" to do so, and they assume (correctly) that they can endlessly argue after the fact that "hearing all sides" includes receiving phone calls of instruction from big campaign contributors while votes are being taken.

Ironically, it's only that minority who truly lie awake nights worrying about such stuff who are likely to furrow their brows over this characterization of public office as an endless "weighing of concerns."

The majority may be "concerned" over a minority house of worship being erected in their neighborhood. They may even wish some police agency to keep a close eye on those different-looking worshippers. But religious freedom is so paramount in our society that any such majority must be told, "That's tough."

The difficult thing about a principled, ethical stand is precisely that the majority may not consider it "reasonable and fair for the sake of all." Sen. Edmund Ross and his family suffered ostracism and poverty when he returned to Kansas after voting against his party in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. His neighbors clearly did not consider his vote "fair and reasonable."

Yet Professor Walton's group has named their document not "Principles of Public Populism," but rather "Principles of Public Ethics." Is there no difference?

Meantime, which of our former public officials currently under indictment for accepting bribes, payoffs and favors in exchange for their votes might reasonably have been expected to say, "Oh gosh, I'd better not sign that; if it later comes out that I've been down on my knees begging for more cash, things could go a lot worse for me"?

Unethical behavior in public office runs rife in Nevada. Even our state Supreme Court has the nerve to rule that the Legislature can ignore a constitutional amendment enacted twice by the people, passing tax hikes by a simple majority if they feel like it.

Some firm ethical standards surely need to be established. Professor Walton's group can be congratulated for making a start. But they are not children, to be told their first work with crayons is a masterpiece suitable for display on the refrigerator.

"Money," "influence," "conflict" and "inside dealing" are not even mentioned, here. We need to get considerably more specific, please. What use is a collection of homilies so bland that everyone will sign them without a moment's thought or debate?