When the Boss Marries a Subordinate

6.7 When the Boss Marries a Subordinate

Controversies: 5.17, 6.11, 6.16 Key Words: leadership, city, police, responsibility, rumor mongering, discipline Case Complexity → Moderate CD: 4.35 Ethics Management for Public Administrators

202 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

As the city’s (population 25,000) public safety director, you are charged with over- seeing the police and fire departments—frequently not an easy job. Nonetheless,

you take your job seriously and are constantly concerned about working conditions and equity among the city’s fifty police officers and thirty firefighters. Alas, you meet and fall in love with one of your female police officers, let’s call her Irene, and in time, enter marital bliss. Your wife does not report directly to you but you do have responsibility for signing off on her annual evaluation.

Although you do not believe you are treating your officer-wife any differently than other patrol officers in the police department, not everyone agrees. In fact, one of her male colleagues, let’s call him Officer Stone, complained via e-mail sev- eral times to her supervisor, Lt. Jones, that your officer-wife, Irene, was receiving preferential treatment. Lt. Jones listened carefully to Officer Stone and eventually

brought his complaint to your attention. Somewhat dismayed and convinced that you have done nothing wrong, you feel that Officer Stone is merely stirring up

trouble and spreading malicious rumors. Consequently, you reprimand him for unprofessional behavior.

Frustrated, Officer Stone shares his concerns and discontent with his wife, Karen, who decides to take things into her own hands. “I can’t take it any more,” she exclaims, “I am going to write an anonymous letter to the press and commu- nity groups about the mismanagement and low morale of the department that the public safety director has caused.” In the letter, Karen also charges that your mar- riage to Officer Irene is illegal as she had unlawfully divorced her husband from a previous marriage.

Th e letter prompts you to investigate the situation—who wrote it? Officer Stone? Someone else? You bring the matter to the county prosecutor. He tells you that no

law has been violated and he therefore will not investigate. Nonetheless, you want to get to the bottom of this and order the police chief to conduct an internal inves- tigation. The investigation proceeds. The chief reports to you that Officer Stone did not write the letter but that he knew his wife had sent the letter.

Th e city’s personnel policies do not prohibit fraternization among employees, although relatives of the city manager and city council are prohibited from working

for the city.

Discussion Questions

1. What would you do next?

a. Would you reprimand Officer Stone once more?

b. Would you fire him for not being forthcoming about his wife’s letter writing?

c. Would you send him to counseling?

d. Would you demand a public apology from Officer Stone’s wife?

e. Is doing nothing an option?

Ethics in the Workplace ◾ 203

2. Who would you consult?

3. If you decide to fire him, is there an ethical issue? How would you rational- ize the decision?

4. What would you expect ex-officer Stone to do?

Case Assessment

Sam Halter, (former) City Administrator, Tampa, Florida and ICMA Range Rider:

Th e actions of public officials are always subject to review by their sub- ordinate staff and the public. Even if an official’s actions are technically correct, if these actions are perceived to be inappropriate by the public or subordinates they can become indefensible.

In this case, the public safety director has taken actions (the rep- rimand of Officer Stone and ordering additional investigation of the matter) which will likely be perceived by his staff and ultimately the public as inappropriate. Even though there has been no documenta- tion of preferential treatment given to his wife, the director’s actions convey the impression he is using his position to cover up acts of favoritism.

It is never a good practice for a public official to have a relative in a subordinate position. Despite efforts to avoid perceived acts of favorit- ism, sooner or later the official will find himself being accused of an inappropriate action. To prevent this from happening, the director needs to stop trying to discredit Officer Stone and take steps to get his wife employed by another agency.

Fred Meine, Professor, Troy University, Florida:

Th is case presents a common and perplexing problem for organizations, particularly hierarchical ones such as police departments and military organizations. While such organizations often have antifraterniza- tion policies, once people get married such policies often break down,

leading to problems like the ones in this scenario. This city does not have a fraternization prohibition, but a questionable personal relation- ship (fraternization) is clearly the root of the problem that developed. Th e matter is usually dealt with by ensuring there is no official superior- subordinate relationship between the parties involved—something dif- fi cult to do in this case.

Th is situation is all about the perception of favoritism. The percep- tion may or may not be true whether the public safety director (PSD)

204 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

intended it or not, since Irene may be treated differently by her super- visors just because of her relationship. Doing nothing is not a viable option since situations like this only fester and become more problem- atic. So, the question is what to do.

While it may have been appropriate to reprimand Officer Stone if his initial complaining to his supervisor was unprofessional in nature, unless it is clear that Stone supported his wife’s letter writing it may be difficult to hold him accountable for the media issue. This may very well be a case where trying to diffuse a negative situation through direct contact is the best approach. The PSD could meet with Officer Stone and his wife in an effort to defuse the situation, and only if that does not help the situation find other ways to deal with Officer Stone more officially. Caution is dictated in the area of official action, because adverse action against Officer Stone carries with it ethical implications or at least will likely contribute to even greater problems relating to perceptions of getting back at Stone. After all, perception is reality, and working to change perceptions could address the problem. The PSD might also totally divorce himself from the personnel evaluation pro- cess for Irene because of their relationship—again as a way to address perception.

Last but not least, the PSD should put to rest the question of the legality of his marriage to avoid future accusations.