Navigating the Ethics Swamp
Menzel, Cases: 4.9 (page 106), Mired in an Ethics Swamp
Ethical considerations are essential when dealing with the purchase of the public property. In this case, there is no evidence of malicious abuse of position by the public officials, and hence, ethical considerations were put in place (Menzel, 2017). The transactions are straightforward, and the allegations are just an attempt to abuse the reputation of the county workers through the omission of some employees (Menzel, 2017). However, the purchase of the PA’s property was in line with the laws pertaining to the purchase of the public property. Further, based on the allegations presented, the action to purchase the property was in the best interests of the county government (Menzel, 2017). However, the public trust could be maintained by slowing down the purchase of the property of the PA, being a political insider, a fact that would paint the action as a scandal.
5.1 (page 135), What would you do if you were the Sheriff?
If I were the Sheriff, I would immediately suspend the sergeant as I follow up for further investigations. If the investigations prove the deputy guilty of the allegations, I will fire him without additional considerations. Public organizations are entrusted with the security and financial responsibility of the public property, which calls for a high level of dignity, transparency, and accountability (Menzel, 2017). The sergeant committed the crime intentionally to his own benefits, at the expense of the citizens, and hence violating the public trust. Considering the number of falsifications and faulty operating procedures, it is evident that the accused has disrupted the normal operations of the organizations, and the expected loss of public funds could be enormous (Menzel, 2017). In this regard, firing him and executing him to the local officials for prosecutions would be my actions as a Sheriff.
5.4 (page 142), What’s a Whistle-Blower to Do?
It is usual for any new employee to follow the rules and orders as received from the seniors. However, as one gets used to the constitution of the organizations or the laws and regulations, he or she becomes cautious in carrying out responsibilities to ensure that the right procedure is followed. In this case, the whistle-blower found himself in a situation where corruption was tolerated, and the officials were reluctant to act on the matters reported to them (Menzel, 2017). As a new employee, the whistle-blower could have established a cautious relationship with the other employees to familiarize himself with how procedures are done and the consequences of unruly behaviors in that organization (Menzel, 2017). This would have paved the way to master the right procedures to expose the corrupt officials cautiously, while aware of the laws that would protect his job. Additionally, he could find other employees with similar concerns and unite with them in whistle-blowing to enhance the effectiveness of the matter.
Menzel, Controversy: 3.18 (page 74), Where Corruption Lives
Corruption is a personal vice which can be spread entirely in an organization, city, or a country, and still have incorrupt individuals withing. In this regard, branding Illinois as the most corrupt state is quit rude because, in both elected and appointed officials, there are officials who are dedicated to exhibit ethical behaviors and carry out their duties responsively (Menzel, 2017). Although the cases of corruption may be more prominent in Illinois than in the other states, yet it is unethical to brand all the officials as corrupt. Such allegations despise the efforts of the possibly few employees who embrace moral behaviors in executing their duties faithfully despite their corrupt workmates (Menzel, 2017). Further, some employees could be dragged into corruption by their seniors just for fear of losing their job, while indeed they are innocent.
Menzel, Cases: 3.2 (page 39) When the Findings Don’t Jive!
Research is done to prove a point or trigger some conclusions. This being the first in a series of studies, I would be open to the results without specific expectations. Firstly, I would have done due diligence research before I contract with the university and identify any possible gaps or weaknesses that would cause biases with the results. If I felt the results were invalid based on my prior diligence research, I would investigate the team members’ background to ensure that no one had personal interests in the research resulting in biased results (Menzel, 2017). If such is a case, I will cancel the contract. However, if the results are legitimate, I would implement changes to enhance the performance of the agency. I would further release the findings to the public after addressing every possible weakness.
(page 43), Zeroing-Out a Grant
Spending on non-essentials to zero-out a grant is unethical behavior that could attract mistrust between the agency and the state. While a state grant follows some agreements with the receiving agency, it is ethical to ensure that the money is spent appropriately to the agreed programs and projects (Menzel, 2017). In this manner, it will be easier to measure performance, enhance accountability, and accurate reporting (Menzel, 2017). However, in cases of unspent portions, the manager should consult the grant administrators to seek further advice before making any decision. This initiates transparency and guarantees future funding for more significant projects. Otherwise, funding non-essentials just to retain the funding level may feature the agent managers as having a conflict of interests to the grant administrators and hence lead to its termination.
5.6 (page 148), To Obey or Not to Obey
Working for the best interests of the residents is considered ethical. The employee felt that the demand of $1,000 from every home was a burden to the residents, considering that most of them are retired. Additionally, the fee was not applied from all residents but only the victims of partially resurfaced streets, which further initiated impartiality in the delivery of public services (Menzel, 2017). I think the employee was right to disobey the orders of the engineering director, because, he initially expressed his concerns to the engineering department and were ignored. However, the employee was cautious enough to collect checks and contracts from the residents, which indicated obedience to the director, although hesitated to cash them as he waited for the mayor’s decision. Therefore, while the employee advocated for the residents’ civil services, disobeying the director’s commands was in order because the administration should have at least addressed his concerns and provide further clarification and directions.
Menzel, Controversies: 3.19 (page 75), Falsifying Documents for the Greater Good?
Official documents are meant for accountability of a transaction or a particular process and demand a high level of discipline. Documents are used by top authorities to ascertain accountability, and falsifying them may attract legal charges against the offender. However, some situations may initiate falsifying documents for the better good. If a situation happens whereby following the orders of a document strictly may yield more bad than good, it is ethical to falsify such a document. However, seeking permission for such falsifications from the relevant authorities may only brand a person a victim of a crime, and hence, it is better when done privately with caution and assurance of better results (Menzel, 2017). Therefore, falsifying a document with the intention to better the results is ethical than adhering to it and reap the worst.
5.14 (page 173), Legal, Wrong…..Or Morally Required?
Securing the $259 million from the federal government is morally required. Firstly, accepting such money is a significant step to establish resources that run the health programs and support the need in the state. The funds are intended to use for Medicaid purposes, which promotes the health of the people. A healthy state will, indeed be a productive state. In this regard, it is moral to secure the federal funds at stake to promote the health services of the Virginia citizens (Menzel, 2017). In any case, the funds are not intended for personal gains, but the welfare of the entire state.