Trustworthiness. Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country RESPECT Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant and accepting of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements RESPONSIBILITY Do what you are supposed to do • Plan ahead • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes • Set a good example for others FAIRNESS Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly • Treat all people fairly
Trustworthiness. Be honest. Be reliable– do what you say you’ll do. Have the courage to do the right thing. Build a good reputation. Be loyal– stand by your family, friends, school, and country. Don’t deceive, cheat or steal. Respect: Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule. Be tolerant of differences. Use good manners. Be considerate of the feelings of others. Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone, or use bad language. Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements.
Trustworthiness. People react favorably when they believe the police are benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to do what is best.* Legitimacy flows from procedural justice. When community members feel that the police are treating them in a procedurally just manner, they are more likely to view the police as a legitimate authority and a trusted partner. When that happens, residents are more inclined to accept and follow police directions and also to assist and partner with the police in community policing and problem-solving efforts. That is why the dual concepts of procedural justice and legitimacy are so fundamental to the practice of community policing. “In essence, legitimacy and procedural justice are measurements of the extent to which members of the public trust and have confidence in the police, believe that the police are honest and competent, think that the police treat people fairly and with respect, and are willing to defer to the law and to police authority.”† Community members make their own judgments about whether officers’ actions, including their uses of force, are “legitimate.” Police agencies must understand and acknowledge these judgments, because the success of an agency depends in large part on the public’s willingness to cooperate and work with the police. These principles should be evident in policy, department systems and processes, and training. It is important that agencies ensure their policies and training are consistent with one another and that both are reinforced in daily practice. This is especially important with regard to police encounters with persons with behavioral health issues and police use of force. Ideally, policies will include language that enables the department to create indicators and mechanisms for assessing community policing performance. Personnel evaluations, for example, should be based on the community policing activities that are expected of an officer. First-line supervisors should establish clear expectations for community interactions and problem solving on a daily basis. Officer performance measurement systems should include indicators of activities that support community policing such as the time an officer spends working with community members to remedy a problem that facilitates crime or that detracts from quality of life in a neighborhood. A useful resource when exploring policy and procedure changes is the community oriented policing checklist. Two leading researchers in the field of community policing deve...
Trustworthiness. People tended to return relatively more to ingroup members, compared with outgroup members and strangers (b = 0.95; P = 0.001). People also tended to return more in the common knowledge condition, compared with the unilateral knowledge condition (b = 1.24; P < 0.001), regardless of their partner’s group membership; there was not a statistically significant interaction (b = 0.43; P = 0.18). Thus, our findings on trustworthiness replicated the findings of trust behavior.
Trustworthiness be honest; don’t deceive, cheat, or steal; be reliable
Trustworthiness. This is, probably, the most difficult requirement to define. The event understanding must be reliable, and precise. For example: It is obvious that there should be a minimum set of famous people that the system should recognise (from all kind of sources). It must be able to recognise current and former presidents or prime ministers of every country but, where is the limit? How can be determined the set of famous people that should be automatically recognised? It is clear that a system unable to recognise the presence of the British prime minister in a video is not meeting the requirements. The same reasoning applies to places, remarkable dates, monuments, etc. In the online processing scenario, the suggested content must be related to the input of the journalist. If the system returns content that has nothing to do with the journalist text, the system will be useless and the users will lose confidence and be reluctant to use it.
Trustworthiness. ASI employees are trustworthy. They keep their promises, fulfill their commitments, and abide by the letter and well as the intent of all agreements.
Trustworthiness. Academic staff and students ground their views as academics on scientific evidence. This entails that: • They do not fabricate, falsify or suppress evidence. The selective omission of research results is reported and justified. • In presenting results of their activities, they do so with the corresponding uncertainties. • In scientific communication, they strive for precision and nuance. • They do not present as established facts speculations, personal opinions and claims that go beyond available evidence.
Trustworthiness. An educator should exemplify honesty and integrity in the course of professional practice and does not knowingly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the charter school board and the MCSAB policies.
Trustworthiness. An educator should exemplify honesty and integrity in the course of professional practice. Ethical conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Properly representing facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression. • Advocating for fair and equitable opportunities for all children. • Embodying for students the characteristics of intellectual honesty, diplomacy, tact, and fairness. Unethical conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting professional qualifications, criminal record, or employment history when applying for employment or certification. • Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting information submitted to federal, state, and/or other governmental agencies. • Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting information regarding the evaluation of students and/or personnel. • Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting reasons for absences or leaves. • Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting information submitted in the course of an official inquiry or investigation.
