Friendly Advice or Quid Pro Quo? – Would Gary’s actions have been acceptable if he had not engaged in a quid pro quo?
Ethics in Public Administration
The Case of the Questionable Campaign Photo
During a primary campaign for the state Senate, a candidate sends out a glossy campaign brochure featuring a photograph of the candidate sitting at a desk with the seal of the state hanging on the wall behind her. She is flanked on one side by the US flag and the State flag on the other. There is a credenza behind the candidate that contains what looks to be family portraits. There is a bowl of jelly beans on the desk. It is a beautiful shot conveying competence and authority. The candidate looks like the office holder that she wishes to become.
When the brochure is received by the public some individuals notice that the photographs on the credenza are actually those of the Governor’s family. The Governor is known to be fond of jelly beans and always has some on his desk. This revelation leads to speculation as to whether the Governor let the candidate use his office for a political photo shoot and whether he was implicitly endorsing her.
The Governor denies letting the candidate use his office for a political photo shoot. He says that he has not endorsed anyone for state Senate and would not do so during the primary. He also refuses requests from other candidates to use his office for campaign photo shoots, saying, “That is not what this office is for.”
The candidate’s opponent has the photograph analyzed and asserts that the picture was digitally altered superimposing a picture of the candidate over that of the Governor. He contacts a local reporter with his evidence. He pushes the reporter to publish the story.
The candidate claims she does not remember when the photograph was taken, but that she had been in the Governor’s office many times as a citizen volunteer. She says that the photo may have been taken on one of those occasions. The candidate disavows any knowledge that the picture was digitally altered. She says that the brochure was created by her political consultant. She says if it was altered, it was done without her consent. She asserts that this issue is just a smokescreen by her opponent to divert attention from the real issues facing the state.
Questions to consider when doing your analysis
1. What are the ethical considerations?
-
- For the candidate?
- For the opponent?
- For the Governor?
- For the political consultant?
- For the reporter who is being urged to publish the story?
2. Would it make a difference to your analysis if the photo was taken in a publically available space in the State House rather than the Governor’s office?
3. Would it make a difference to your analysis if the candidate was an incumbent?
4. Would it make a difference to your analysis if the picture was not altered, but included the Governor?
5. Would it make a difference to your analysis if the photo was in fact altered and the Governor was digitally included in the shot?
Social Media Creates an Ethical Dilemma
Mike Monroe and Derek Wheeler were roommates and fraternity brothers at a small mid-western college. Both were political science majors, so they saw a lot of each other, both in academic and social situations. Derek’s wild and outrageous pranks, excessive drinking, and one-night-stands earned him the reputation of playing “fast and loose” in his personal life. He had been caught plagiarizing twice, but was only given a warning. Still, he was personable and a good friend, so upon graduation the two vowed to stay in touch.
After their fifth college reunion, where Derek became so drunk he needed to be hospitalized, Mike decided to break off communication. His only updates on his former roommate came through the fraternity alumni magazine, where Derek submitted updates on his career. He had a master’s degree in public administration, and had been working for cities in several states. His job in each jurisdiction lasted only two or three years, but each new job sounded like a promotion. Mike figured Derek had finally “grown up” and was happy to learn of his success.
Mike had also been successful. He moved to Utah and worked as a field representative for a state legislator. He fell in love with public service and was elected to the city council. He was now in his second term as mayor and was overseeing a new “culture of ethics” program in River Falls, stressing values in addition to the rules outlined in the code of ethics.
It had been 10 years since they last connected, so Mike was surprised to get an invitation from Derek to be a friend on two separate Facebook accounts. Mike agreed, and first went to a personal account featuring facts about Derek’s education, work history, and family. The second Facebook page, with privacy controls restricting access, was for a group called “Derek’s Doghouse.” The other “friends” on the site included some fraternity brothers, but also a collection of men Derek had met or worked with over the years.
He founded the group, according to the site, “to celebrate the good life: wine, women, and wild times.” The wall postings chronicled wild weekends in Las Vegas, gambling on sporting events, and exploits with women while on business trips. The 20 or so members were candid, unedited, and occasionally profane in their comments, bragging about their bad behavior. The stories were often accompanied by compromising photos.
Within days of the Facebook contact, Derek called Mike to ask for a job recommendation. He was submitting his application for the assistant city manager position in River Falls and wanted Mike to put in a good word. “I’ve never asked for a favor,” Derek said, “but this job is perfect for me and my family. I really hope you will be able to influence the HR director and city manager to hire me.”
Questions to consider when doing your analysis
- How should Mike proceed? Should he tell Derek he doesn’t feel comfortable making the recommendation?
- Should he tell Derek that River Falls is not a “good fit” for him?
- Does he have an obligation to alert the HR manager and/or city manager of the way Derek conducts his personal life?
4. Is Derek’s secret personal life an indication of his values? Does it matter?
Friendly Advice or Quid Pro Quo?
After working five years at the plan-checking counter at Robinsdale city hall, Gary Hess was looking forward to submitting his resume for the vacancy as assistant planning director. His interactions with the customers coming to have their building permits and architectural plans approved had been challenging in the beginning, but he felt he had “done his time” and had enough experience to warrant the promotion.
The city manager decided to hold an open recruitment for the position. Succession planning was one of her priorities. There were going to be several retirements in the Planning and Inspection Department, so she was looking for someone with management potential. To his great disappointment Gary was passed over, and the job went to Wendy Boone, a planning assistant from a neighboring city. When he asked the city manager why he was not chosen, she replied, “Your time will come. Right now, I need strong leadership.”
While he was driving home that evening Gary was increasingly angry over the hiring decision. Not only would he be “stuck” working with the public at the counter, he had missed an opportunity for a more prestigious title and a substantial pay increase he had been counting on. Rather than stay mad, he decided to find a way to make the most of his situation.
The city had compiled a list of approved, licensed contractors that was available at the counter. This list did not imply a recommendation – it was meant to help residents, architects, and builders by listing those companies with a city as well as state license.
Gary began contacting companies on the list, suggesting that because he “admired their work” he would be willing to make a specific recommendation to people who came to the counter. Although he did not ask outright for anything in return, two of the companies promised a financial “bonus” for each contract that came through his recommendation. A third company offered use of a mountain cabin so that Gary and his family could take occasional weekends off to ski.
At first Gary was selective in making these “transactions,” but after six months his kickbacks seemed to be going undetected, and he became bolder. He bought a new car and began bragging about his “weekend at the chalet.”
In her six-month review of department operations—an audit of all activities—Wendy noticed the unusual number of contracts that were going to just three of the two dozen names of the list. When she questioned Gary, he denied any wrongdoing, and insisted that the three companies on the list were, in his opinion, superior. Further, there were no written rules prohibiting making personal recommendations.
Questions to consider when doing your analysis
- Is it unethical for a city employee to make recommendations based on his or her experience?
- Would Gary’s actions have been acceptable if he had not engaged in a quid pro quo?
- What action should Wendy take with Gary? With other department employees?
- Is there anything the city manager might do to prohibit this type of behavior?
- What do you think?
Ethics in Public Administration
Final Exam Case Study Select 3
