People who review books, tapes, or other products should not treat them as their personal property. Those items belong to the association or business that employs the reviewer.

Product should not be sold, given to friends, presented as gifts, or taken for personal use.

When a reviewer no longer needs the product, it should be given to the association to donate to a worthy cause, to auction at a fund-raiser, or to be used as a prize for volunteer service.

If the reviewer is a free-lance business owner, the product should be donated to a worthy cause.

The reviewer should not personally benefit from the product - even if the provider or manufacturer doesn't care.

If an association executive works for an organization whose members engage in unethical business practices, is the assn exec guilty of supporting those practices?

I say, yes.

On my first day on the job, in a new CEO position, the Vice-President of the Board took me to lunch, informed me he was in the insurance business, and said he'd like to sell a policy to the association.

The next day, another Board member treated me to lunch (at the same place), said he was in the printing business, and asked to bid on all of our print jobs.

Yet another Board member was a magazine publisher who chaired our Publications Committee. She used her position to fight a proposal to launch our own magazine, which she felt would compete with hers. Her efforts failed and she resigned from the Board.

The Board initially resisted a conflict of interest policy governing its activities, but finally adopted a watered-down version based on disclosure rather than prohibition.

Association conflict of interest policies, when they exist, generally address personal, economic conflicts of board, staff, vendors, or speakers.

But they should also address other situations in which a person acts in the interests of both parties (that's what "conflict" means).

ASAE pointed to a list of potential conflicts of interest that association executives should be aware of.

It's not always about money.

Association employees work for the association, not for themselves. Therefore, any gifts, perks, bonus points, or honoraria they are offered for speaking engagements, meeting planning, or other activities should be treated as association property and handed over to the association.

Thus, there should be no need to devise criteria for determining whether these goodies belong to the employee or to the association.

If an employee is acting as a representative of the association, the association should be the beneficiary, regardless of the activity, timing of the event, category of employment, or any other criteria.

If an employee is acting as an individual, and the activity is within the domain of the association, the association should still be the beneficiary. Employees should not compete with the association nor moonlight in the same field or industry.

Bottom line: Don't treat association activities as opportunities to secure additional income and don't solicit or accept consulting deals in your industry - even if the association allows it.

I didn't listen to, nor read, Tiger Woods' apology for two reasons: 1) His indiscretions are a private matter between Woods and his wife. They are not the public's business; and, 2) Apologies are worthless.

If you make a mistake, an apology does not correct it. You still need to undo your mistake and deal with its effects.

If corporate execs apologized for the economic disaster they caused (I don't recall them doing so), it would not bring back people's savings, jobs, or homes. Execs need to engage in concrete actions to make things right - or, at least, more right than they are now.

If corrupt politicians apologized for using their public positions for private gain, it would not result in funds returned to the treasury, contracts awarded to deserving companies, or lives restored to people killed by drivers who obtained their licenses illegally.

If association leaders misappropriated funds, an apology would not restore the groups' reputation or bank account.

Wrongdoers should not expect to be forgiven by apologizing. They need to fix the problems they created and, in the case of legal violations, experience the consequences of having broken the law.

A recent study by the Ethics Resource Center (reported by ASAE) found a slight improvement in ethical standards over the last two years.

Disturbingly, though, instances of ethical transgression is still far too high: 49% of employees reported witnessing misconduct on the job.

Ethics is not just about people doing the right thing - although that should be enough.

Doing the wrong thing can cause severe problems for associations, for their members, and, of course, for the person committing an unethical act.

So, always do the right thing.

Associations frequently curry favor with public officials who have influence over public policy that affects the association's members.

That is fine - but not during elections.

Once candidates have filed petitions for elective office, the association should not do anything that appears to favor a candidate - even if the candidate deserves being favored.

Associations that do not endorse electoral candidates should follow these guidelines:

1. DO NOT invite the candidate - even if that candidate is a current officeholder - to speak at an association meeting. It implies an endorsement, even if the candidate does not talk specifically about campaign issues or appeals for votes.

2. DO NOT invite the candidate to sit on a conference panel. It gives the candidate an unfair advantage over opposing candidates and implies an association endorsement.

3. DO NOT print the candidate's picture on a web page or in any association publication during the campaign.

4. DO NOT publish biographical or governmental information about the candidate.

5. DO NOT mention the candidate's role in supporting association programs. Save that for after the election.

6. DO NOT promote the candidate in any way that appears to favor that person over opposing candidates.

The association attorney may declare all or some of these actions to be legal - but that does not make them ethical.

The CEO of one statewide association accepted gifts from association vendors, utilized association resources for personal use, and engaged in personal business dealings with companies in the industry.

Another association CEO accepted - and often solicited - gifts from vendors and sponsors. Some of those perks were even written into sponsorship agreements.

An association marketing director accepted payment for services from private companies - the same services provided to companies by the association.

If these folks had complied with the following guidelines, they would not have run afoul of ethical standards (and might still be occupying their positions):

1. You work for the association, not for yourself. Everything you do should be to benefit the association, not to benefit you.

2. Never use your position for personal gain.

3. Never contract with a vendor, supplier, or property because it gave you a gift of any kind.

4. Never compete with the association for customers (even if you only work part-time).

5. Never engage in an activity that gives the impression of being a conflict of interest.

6. Never accept a tip, gratuity, honorarium, or anything else in return for doing your job. Anything that cannot be tactfully turned down should be considered association property and given to the association.

7. Always adhere to association ethical standards, even if you are a consultant or an independent contractor. Not doing so jeopardizes the welfare of the association and makes you a liability to the group, instead of an asset. It may also make you a criminal.

Here's the ultimate staff conflict of interest.

An association conducted an annual competition for the best product in its industry.

Posted on the association's web site was a link to a consultant who could be hired to help competitors prepare their applications.

The consultant was the association's executive director.

Oddly, that didn't seem to bother anybody.

Kevin Holland mused about Matt Baer's "big idea" about not-for-profits being for-profit. Think about this:

The University of Illinois at Chicago and the Center for Enterprise Development offered a continuing education program in business administration with separate tracks for not-for-profit executives and small business owners.

Participants in each track were asked how to create a telephone answering service that was deemed to be an income generator and a job creator.

The not-for-profit execs spent a half hour trying, without success, to figure out where they could find valid data about how such an enterprise could operate (this was before web sites and e-mail).

The small business owners took less than five minutes to complete the same task.

First, they'd call an existing business, pretend to be a potential customer, and ask about the fees. Secondly, they'd get hired by one of these companies and work there for a couple of weeks to learn how the business operated. Then they'd quit and start their own business.

The not-for-profit executives were appalled. They considered the small business owners' plan extremely unethical, felt it was outright theft, and they refused to adopt such a plan.

They then resumed their discussion about where to find valid data (they finally settled on private foundations that funded business subsidiaries of not-for-profit organizations).

Ethics is one area where not-for-profits and for-profits think very differently.