What Would You Do if You Were the Sheriff?

5.1 What Would You Do if You Were the Sheriff?

Controversies: 3.13 Key Words: county, loyalty, cook the books, leadership Case Complexity → Moderate CD: 4.34 Citizen-Client-Customer CD: 4.35 Ethics Management for Public Administrators

Imagine that you are the county sheriff in a large, urban, high-growth county where you have served as a popular elected county sheriff for twenty years. To your dismay, you are informed that one of your sergeants who has served the county for many years is charged with 129 counts of falsification of official documents, 144 counts of failure to follow standard operating procedures, and conduct unbecom- ing a member of the sheriff’s office—charges made by your internal affairs inves- tigators. The deputy, as it turns out, coordinates all the work at the port authority and is in a position to log off-duty assignments for himself at the port that far exceed regular work week hours. The investigators charge that the sergeant know- ingly cooked the books and over-rode computer programs to prevent others from knowing what he did.

Discussion Questions

1. What would you do with the sergeant?

a. Put a letter of reprimand in his personnel file?

b. Ban him from working any off-duty assignments?

c. Suspend him, reduce him in rank, fire him? Th e sergeant’s supervisor wants him suspended for thirty days and reduced to the

rank of deputy. The disciplinary review board wants him fired. You are about to retire

136 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

and don’t need to worry about being reelected any more. The allegations against the sergeant have been published in the local newspaper. What would you do?

Results

Th e sheriff placed the officer on a twenty-day suspension without pay, banned him from working off-duty assignments for two years, and ordered him not to coordi- nate any off-duty work for the rest of his career.

Case Assessment

Mary Delano, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Center for Architecture & Building Science Research, Newark, New Jersey:

As managers of public agencies and publicly funded organizations, we have an obligation to perform our jobs with the highest of ethical stan- dards in regards to behavior and financial responsibility. The deputy abused both. His abuse was not minor, it was to his own benefit and at the expense of the tax payer, and therefore he should have been fired for cause. The punishment did not fit the crime. In the public sector we are obligated to make decisions and act based on what is right and appropri- ate within the framework of what we are entrusted to do on the public’s behalf or we risk losing the public trust and support.

I say the sheriff responded in a way that was convenient, perhaps, but not in a way that was justifiably called for and appropriate. He therefore misused his power for convenience and this is wrong. We are betraying the public trust by making decisions based on convenience or politics or expedience, or what have you (because we have the power to). We should make decisions based on what is right and appropriate within the frame- work of what we are entrusted to do on the public’s behalf.

Th is is what ethics is about—doing what is right as opposed to what we can get away with for self-serving reasons.

Mark Monson, Deputy Director for Administration, Department of Health Professions, State of Virginia:

If I were the sheriff, I would immediately suspend the deputy pending

a review of the Internal Affairs report. (Whether he is placed on paid or unpaid suspension would depend on the internal policy regarding such suspensions. If there is no policy, I’d place him on unpaid suspension.) If the review of the investigators’ report shows that he is guilty of the

Building Organizations of Integrity ◾ 137

allegations, I would immediately fire him. Moreover, I would refer the matter to the local commonwealth attorney for criminal prosecution.

My logic … This is not an ordinary bureaucrat. This is a person who took an oath to uphold the law and has the authority to arrest those who do not. He violated that oath. Punishment for such a violation must be clear, swift, and unequivocal. The public deserves nothing less. Moreover, failure to take strong action could cause all the members of law enforcement in that community to be tainted by his actions. Law enforcement officers already have a tough enough job. They don’t need that burden, too.

Author’s Note: Based on a case reported in the Tampa Tribune, June 9, 2004, Metro p. 2.