Article Tools

• Bookmark

Advertisement

Most Popular News

• Where teleworking is headed in 2012
• Increased use of purchasing cards in government likely in 2012
• Affordable kiosks ensure ADA compliance in government facilities

Know before you buy or sell. Get your truck's value instantly online.

Find Your Truck Now

*To see the actual values, you must purchase a subscription or a single-vehicle lookup.

MISCONCEPTION 4: "I can be objective!"

A purchasing manager from a Northwestern state had issued a request-for-proposal (RFP) for specialized services. After receiving the proposals, the manager met with the evaluation committee, coached the committee through the evaluation process and had them sign statements indicating they had no conflicts of interest in performing the evaluation. The committee returned their recommendation for award along with the scoring of each evaluator. After reviewing the recommendation and evaluation findings, the manager noticed an anomaly between the scoring of the evaluators and the chair of the committee. The recommended awardee was only scored high by the chair; the other evaluator scores had indicated that another proposershould receive the award.

The manager reconvened the evaluation team to discuss the recommendation. The other evaluators recommended a different award but had been encouraged by the chair to award to the firm he scored high. Pressed about why the chair had favored one vendor, he said, "I know they are a good firm because my wife works there." The manager reminded him of the signed conflict-of-interest statement, but the chair insisted he was being objective. Further discussion finally convinced the chair that he indeed had a conflict of interest. His scores were removed and a new awardee was selected. The incident reminds us to always be sensitive to potential conflicts of interest and to deal with them even when we think we can maintain "objectivity."

MISCONCEPTION 5: "As long as I am not receiving personal gain, it must be OK."

One local agency had a motor pool with a dedicated fleet of vehicles. The mission of the agency required considerable travel, so the fleet was justified. The motor pool occasionally reordered new vehicles from the state contract to replace older vehicles in the fleet. Upon seeing the state contract price in one requisition for 10 vehicles to replenish the fleet, the director informed the purchasing agent and the accounting clerk that he was changing the quantity on the order from 10 to 11. The extra car would be for the director's personal use and not used for agency business. The director would write out a personal check for the amount when the vehicle was delivered. The vehicles were delivered, the director wrote the check, and took possession of the car. Everyone was happy…or not!

One employee of the agency did not think the transaction was right and contacted the ethics commission. After investigating the purchase, the commission found the director had violated ethics rules. The resulting conflict ended in court. The judge said, "But for your position as an employee of the government agency, you would not have had the opportunity to make that purchase. Therefore you violated the ethics rules." A civil penalty was assessed, as well. Employees of a government entity should not use their position for any type of personal gain.

MISCONCEPTION 6: "It will only be this one time."

Unethical behavior rarely starts with the "million dollar deal." After a small, innocuous action directs us down the path, it becomes harder and harder to change direction or reverse course, as a local athletic youth league found out when it needed one of the parents to step up and serve in an unpaid bookkeeping position. A single mom who had one child in the athletic program volunteered to serve. One evening after collecting some of the fees, she stopped by the grocery store. Reaching into her purse, she realized she did not have her checkbook, so she "borrowed" from the cash of the athletic fund. The cash was quickly returned to the fund. But the next time, she forgot to return the money, although it was only a few dollars. A year and many dollars later, an investigation requested by others in the league revealed a significant shortage of funds in the account. Such are the dangers of "only-this-time" thinking.

MISCONCEPTION 7: "If it happens outside of work, what I do does not matter."

I was teaching an ethics class in one of the Midwest states last year and, during the course of the class, students shared ethics-related events in their work and personal lives. One young lady had a particularly gripping story that I still remember vividly. She was a young mom with two growing children, and there were always more bills than dollars. One evening after work with both children in tow, she had to do some grocery shopping. Walking toward the checkout line, she noticed a wad of money on the floor, more than $400. The cashier had not observed her "find," so only she and her children knew about the money. Her children, ecstatic that the extra money could help them out, were baffled when the young mom asked the checkout attendant to call the store manager. She explained to the manager where and how she had found the money and gave it to the manager, over the protests of her children. She later explained to them that it was the right thing to do. Besides, she added, "The person who lost the money may have needed it even more." She shared with the class that the single action of turning in the money had a far greater impact on her children than she realized. Later, they often mentioned the action and applied it to decisions they made. She had modeled ethical behavior, illustrating that what we do does matter.

MISCONCEPTION 8: "The end justifies the means (or if it saves the agency money, it must be OK)."

Occasionally people who have contracting authority do not see the harm of "steering" contracts to family or friends. This is an unethical practice, as illustrated by a fire department of a large city in the Pacific Northwest with multiple fire stations. One manager for the department was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep for those stations. Over a two-year period, the manager awarded 27 contracts worth more than $85,000 to a company owned by his son. Many of the contracts were just under the $5,000 requiring competition. In some cases multiple contracts just under the $5,000 threshold were issued to his son's company for the same project within the same week. Investigators identified a pattern of routing contracts falling just under that threshold to his son's company. The manager was quoted saying, "The work was performed satisfactorily, and I believe the city received a good product for a fair price. I received no personal gain from the work." Fragmenting or other forms of dividing work or otherwise inhibiting or eliminating competition is a very unethical practice.