When Duty and Morality Clash

3.8 When Duty and Morality Clash

Controversies: 4.12, 5.13 Key Words: duty, morality, law Case Complexity → Moderate CD: 6.1 American Society for Public Administration Code of Ethics

Can you ever imagine a moment when you might quit your job because you object to a direct order from your supervisor to lower a flag in honor of a fallen leader? It does happen, although not frequently.

Imagine that you are the head of the county’s convention and visitors bureau (CVB). You have worked your way up through the ranks to become the head of the CVB after a distinguished twenty-nine year county career and have a strong sense of ownership in the bureau. You have been largely responsible for building it into

a successful agency. As it happens, an aging former, now retired but long serving chairman of the Board of County Commissioners dies (let’s call him Mr. Smith). The current chair orders the building supervisors of all county facilities to lower the county flag to half-mast out of respect for the passing of the chairman. You object! Why? The former chair in your opinion was a model of “negativity, hate, and prejudice”—a racist. You do not believe it would be appropriate to honor Mr. Smith by lowering the flag.

Your boss disagrees and you receive a string of e-mail messages informing you that you could either lower the flag or retire effective immediately. You are fifty-one years old and earn $65,235.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you lower the flag?

2. Do you plead with your boss to be allowed to keep your job?

3. Do you resign?

Assessment

Martin Black, (former) City Manager, Venice, Florida:

You’ve prided yourself on a strong sense of what is morally right and eth- ically appropriate; honoring someone whose actions carry community

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 53

conflict-laden values like hate and prejudice would turn back the clock. You’ve put in your time so take a firm stance, but do it professionally.

Let your boss know that you’ve got deeper concerns about honoring

a past official whose actions and core values may reignite community dissension and isn’t the type of display you believe the county should encourage nor one that would be supported by important members of

a community that is broadly diverse and engaged. Most importantly let the chair know privately that this is a core value issue for you and that you have concerns for the community’s reaction and perspective.

Since there’s no clear violation of local, state, or federal law involved in refusing to lower the flag, and given that the chair has provided you with a written ultimatum in a series of progressively stronger e-mails, it’s time for you to “walk the talk.” First, make it clear why you refuse to lower the flag, document your reasons, and provide the opportunity for a graceful retreat by the current chair. Make sure that the chair understands that you are prepared to sever the relationship you invested your career in and they must likewise be prepared for the wrongful termination case. Prepare your exit memorandum announcing your decision to the chair and the remainder of the board to submit a forced resignation subject to the terms of a severance agreement that allows you to retain your integrity and core values. Know that, in any event, you won’t recover nor trust the judgment of the chair going forward, so it’s better to leave the CVB position, keeping true to your twenty-nine years of integrity in service to the community. You’ve gained the experi- ence that will allow you to find another opportunity, you’ll sleep better

at night, and your actions might become a catalyst to reinforce change for the right reasons.

Melvin J. Dubnick, Professor and Director, Public Administration, University of New Hampshire:

Perhaps the most difficult cases of ethical dilemmas seem trivial to those who view it from the outside, and some might see this as a

“no-brainer”—why put your career and economic well-being at risk over a matter that seems so inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. But there are instances when personal feelings and beliefs exer- cise a powerful influence over our reactions and choices, and in this case the CVB head (let’s call her Ms. Jones) has very strong feelings about the deceased Mr. Smith.

Th ere are all sorts of factors to consider here, including whether the negative view Jones has of Smith is widely shared and whether Smith’s

behavior in recent years had been more positive. (On the national polit- ical scene, we have examples of major figures such as George Wallace

54 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

and Strom Thurman who advocated segregationist policies earlier in their careers but who changed their public stands by the 1980s.)

Jones has to make an economic calculation about how to deal with the situation, but let’s assume she puts financial and career consider- ations aside. What seems to be driving her is a sense of indignation about efforts to honor Smith, but it would be foolhardy for Jones to ignore other emotions such as the value one assigns to being a respon- sible employee and the professional obligation of a public servant to implement the will of elective officials. Like it or not, there is a nonfi- nancial cost in terms of one’s reputation to pay for taking the kind of stand Jones is considering. She really has to consider what reputational price she is willing to pay for her actions.

Th ere might be ways to shape the situation in a way that can somewhat ameliorate the dilemma. Jones might suggest that lower- ing the flag to half-staff in all county facilities should be reserved as an honor for those who gave their lives in the line of duty, and that Smith’s service be memorialized in a more limited way—for example, perhaps a picture of the deceased can be placed in the lobby of the county courthouse, surrounded by black crepe for a week or so. In presenting this option, Jones can mention to the county supervisor that this is a politically wise option given the memories and issues that might arise if too much is made of Smith’s role in county govern- ment. This approach can still work even if, as the case narrative sug- gests, Jones has already made her strong opinions known and received the harsh e-mail response. A meeting with the county board chair can be arranged in which Jones admits that her reaction was driven by some very strong feelings about Smith’s record, and that while she regrets being so confrontational about the order, she is probably not alone in her opinions and feelings about Smith. The conversation can lead to a suggestion that it would be in the board chair’s (political) interest to reconsider the flag order and instead think more in terms of the “lobby” option.

Indignation is a powerful and useful force in public service ethics— but there are times when one has to take a more considered approach before letting one’s emotions put a career (and reputation) at risk.

Stuart C. Gilman, Deputy Director, Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative and Senior Advisor, Governance, Security and Rule of Law Section, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:

Th is case revisits the classic issue of exit, voice, or loyalty. Unfortunately, this is more common for civil servants than one would think. I believe

the answer to this question has to be weighed in a series of steps. First,

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 55

the head of the CVB should validate his opinion of Mr. Smith with colleagues or members of the community. Is this an isolated position or is it widely held in the community? After all, lowering the flag, which is usually governed by rules, is to honor a person’s public service. If this is primarily her opinion, she needs to weigh whether this is a moral position, or a personal position. Taking this example, would we still agree if she decided that because Smith supported abortion, violating her beliefs, would she have the same right? I am not suggesting that even if she is alone in her beliefs that she not act, but rather that she has an opportunity to hear how others perceive this issue.

Second, if this is a shared ethical perception, the question is, “Was the approach to the commissioner clear and open?” It appears that all communications are via e-mail, which is a notorious means for creating misunderstandings. Has she talked to the commissioner? If not, she should try to engage to explain her strong ethical objection to respect- ing Mr. Smith (although it sounds like the atmosphere is fairly poisoned at this point). It should be noted that in addition to the personal ethi- cal issue, the head of the CVB has a professional obligation to explain the impact of such an honor on visitors coming into the community. It is important to note both an ethical and professional issue in such a display.

In a real case that I am familiar with, the civil servant printed the order for the (equivalent) supervisor’s signature. He told his supervisor that he would be ill tomorrow and his deputy could be given it tomor- row. Instead of being fired, he was thanked by the supervisor (once he cooled down) because he realized how important the issue was to his subordinate. Sometimes there is good news!

Exhausting these two steps, she is confronted now with exit, voice, or loyalty.

She can just raise the flag. Nonetheless, we don’t know what her personal situation is. For example, she could be a single mother with three children, one a special needs child. One of the children could

be in college and she could have a sick mother. I am not being cute. At 51 she could be confronted with a multitude of challenges—that’s why there are usually protections for civil servants. It is rare to have a supervisor capable of ordering someone to retire. Obviously, if there is no appeal possible or protections in place, she can try to get a peer of the commissioner to intercede. Negotiation can often lead to a reason- able compromise.

Give voice: She can call in the media, explain her objection and the threats that have been made against her. She can use any civil service rules available to her and seriously consider getting legal advice should this result in an administrative action against her for insubordination.

56 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

She can retire, either quietly or with voice. I would argue retiring quietly, without voice, means that the head of CVB was not as seri- ous about the issue as she thought. If this is only personal, she is not taking into account her responsibility to the citizens in the commu- nity. Retirement with voice is the only ethical position if this is her choice.

Voice can take many forms, including organizing an open forum on racism, a news conference, or a public letter to the commissioner’s superior. Someone with this many years of public service will be taken seriously.

Author’s Note: This case is based on a real case that occurred in July 2008 when L.F. Eason III, the head of the North Carolina Standards

Laboratory (a unit of the state Department of Agriculture), ordered his staff to not lower the flag in honor of the passing of former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms. Mr. Eason “told his staff that he did not think it was appro- priate to honor Helms because of his ‘doctrine of negativity, hate, and prejudice’ and his opposition to civil rights bills and the federal Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday.” Mr. Eason chose to retire. Would you have done the same thing? Why or why not?

Th e News & Observer, July 9, 2008. http://www.newsobserver.com/ politics/politicians/helms/story/1135443.html (accessed August 12, 2008)