To the editor:

For House Speaker/litigator Mike O’Neal: Can you act in a truly virtuous manner in your public duties and private business by avoiding issues under litigation you conduct for private clients against Kansas while leading the Kansas House of Representatives? I say no.

Expenses defending litigation place you as an adversary to the Kansas citizenry already beleaguered by losses of government services. As a litigator against Kansas you are not defending the public good, rather you’re a champion for narrow (meritorious or not) interests of private clients. If true to your clients, as legal ethics demand, you’re against Kansas.

My ethical compass, calibrated by 37 years of government service, tells me your choice of clients conflicts with Kansas’ public good, impairs public trust, and wastes appropriations. Consider the following points from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. First, “Even the appearance of impropriety undermines the public’s faith that the process is fair.” Second, “Aristotle would have argued that leaders should have true virtue, where all parts of the soul are pulling in the same direction; that is, toward the good.”

As House speaker, you control all House processes as its presiding officer, lead the majority caucus and quarterback all the legislative committee chairs. In this high position of public trust, you must defend the public good at all times. In the future, you must decline to represent plaintiffs with claims against Kansas or step down.

Michael K. Kelly,

Lawrence