I have learned over the years not to worry too much about the dangers of personal friends reading my Sunday columns. That is a slight exaggeration, but not too slight. It is a naked and at times jarring fact that most of the people in my life apparently do not know of my modest presence on this page. If pals or acquaintances do read me, they sure are good at keeping it a secret. vActually, once every blue moon, friends or students of mine do indeed comment on an effort in this space. Whether they agree or disagree with me, I always thank them. It's great to have a reader.

Today I am hoping none of my ethics students happen upon these words. Really! If any of them do, he or she will probably shake a finger at me. “You told us in class that manners and issues of politeness were different than questions of ethical right or wrong!” my student might scold me.

This is true. Many a time I have said that rudeness is “wrong” in its own particular way, and that unethical conduct is “wrong” in a different way. I have also said that language is always limited and frail. Thus, at times, a blurring of the line between lousy manners and lousy ethics may occur. The two kinds of wrong dissolve, similar perhaps to the way an ice cube melts on a table top. Melted ice can be a bit messy.

A blurring of the lines between rude behavior and actual unethical conduct is precisely what happened last Tuesday in the legislature.

At issue was an amendment affecting township mayors of five “special municipalities,” a proposal to allow them to become, more or less automatically, “district heads” at the end of the year. The new positions will last till 2014, mind you, and involve 56 incumbents, all of whom are on the public payroll.