Going Along to Get Along?

4.5 Going Along to Get Along?

Controversies: 3.15, 6.16, 6.18 Key Words: city, health code, abuse of power Case Complexity → Moderate CD: 6.1 American Society for Public Administration Code of Ethics CD: 6.2 International City/County Management Association Code of Ethics

94 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

You have been newly hired as the director of the city’s bureau of restaurant inspection services. One of your first acts is to conduct a few site visits as a way of learning firsthand about your job. To your surprise and dismay, you find that many inspectors are ignoring serious health code violations.

You decide to discuss your findings with your boss, Sally, who is the head of the city’s health department. Sally, who has recently proposed a substantial budget increase to a receptive city manager and city council, suggests to you that there might

be some negative fall out to the department if the problems in the restaurant bureau become public—as they might if an inspector under investigation decides to argue publicly that department brass knew about the situation. Sally advises you to handle the situation with appropriate discretion and regard for the interests of the organiza- tional team.

Discussion Questions

1. Should you go along to get along with your boss, Sally?

2. Should you be a good team player and postpone corrective action so as not to upset the financial applecart?

3. Or should you launch an investigation and take appropriate disciplinary and site corrective actions to protect the public interest?

4. Has Sally put you in an unfair, perhaps compromising position? For instance, if the problem becomes public and you postpone corrective action, have you been set up by Sally for a fall?

Case Assessment

Susan Walker, Administrator, Neighborhood Services Department, City of Pinellas Park, Florida:

As a newly hired director, you have a unique opportunity—and very appropriate method—to handle this situation without placing blame, launching an investigation, or otherwise “damaging” the department’s or Sally’s organizational interests. You should develop

a bureau procedure for restaurant inspections, including all the nec- essary forms, inspector check sheets, supervisory sign-offs, exam- ples/photos of acceptable versus unacceptable conditions, violation processes, etc., prepared in the interests of the public health, safety, and welfare—that’s your job to do. Review the procedure with Sally and get her buy-in. Then have a bureau staff meeting—ask Sally to

be there as department head and to show her support for you and the bureau staff. At the meeting, discuss your goals for the bureau and towards the end, review the new procedure and encourage dis- cussion from your experts, the inspectors. Let your inspectors know

Encouraging Ethical Behavior ◾ 95

that you will tweak the procedure as needed, and to do that you need to learn and appreciate their job … so you will be spending a day or two with each of them in the field. Discuss any concern items with each inspector one-on-one. Update the procedure as necessary. Take any corrective actions that result from the procedure not being followed.

Jamil Jreisat, Professor of Public Administration, University of South Florida-Tampa:

In this case, the adage of going along to get along is a poor choice to follow by the health inspector. Sally’s “suggestion” that revealing the mistakes, involving serious health code violations, might have “negative fall out” is disingenuous and outright unethical. It is tantamount to a cover up. Getting along is fine, being a team player is preferable and commendable, but these values and norms are not the purpose, and cannot be a substitute, for the mission of the organization or the reason for hiring the inspector.

Th e basic value for the inspector is to serve taxpayers and to imple- ment the rules and regulations of the organization with competence and integrity. Compliance with Sally’s suggestion, in this situation, does not serve the organization or the citizens nor show the inspector as a responsible person.

Th e inspector need not be obstinate or denouncing of Sally’s sug- gestion. The first task for the inspector is to have a discussion with

Sally to communicate with her sensibly about three facets to this dilemma: First, the inspector, too, is concerned about the fall out and the potential of undermining Sally’s concerns for the organi- zation and the team. Second, the inspector, however, believes that the risk is greater to the organization’s integrity by not revealing the information and taking corrective measures. Third, the inspector would like to work with Sally on the method of handling the matter without violation of the inspector’s sense of responsibility and with high regard to the organization’s mission and citizens’ mandate to the organization.

Th e inspector needs to alert Sally to the consequences of not being transparent and not ensuring accountability. The inspector needs

to convince Sally that sooner or later the matter will be revealed and will then incur far more harm than otherwise. Actually, the inspector should suggest that handling the matter expeditiously and effectively

will improve the image of the health bureau and increase trust by the city manager, the council members, and citizens at large. The inspector should convey affirmatively and clearly his understanding of the need for positive support and team playing in the department, but that, at the

96 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

same time, he believes that correcting errors and admitting mistakes are signs of strength and organizational integrity. Final, the inspector needs to communicate without pomposity that he is a professional person with a deep sense of commitment to principles of good management, including transparency, accountability, building trust, and always put-

ting the interest of the public ahead of all other considerations.