A Purely Private Matter?

3.7 A Purely Private Matter?

Controversies: 5.17, 6.18 Key Words: county, finance, extortion, hearsay Case Complexity → Moderate CD: 4.37 Public Service, Ethics, Democracy

As county finance director, you are contacted by a bank official who is also a social acquaintance. The banker indicates that he is calling “off the record” to ask about Fred, one of your assistant directors whose work you regard as exemplary. Your friend’s concern is about an elderly depositor who has written more than 150 checks of over $1,000 each to Fred’s wife—totaling over $500,000—within a four-year period. He further relates to you that in contacting this customer, the banker could only ascertain that this gentleman (in his 90s) lives next door to Fred—the con- versation was otherwise confused and incoherent. Concerned about your privacy obligations to your employee, you reveal little to your friend other than that Fred is an assistant director in your agency.

After much thought, you decide to tell Fred about the banker’s inquiry. In response, Fred explains how his wife has “cared for” this neighbor (who has no living relatives) by accompanying him to numerous physician appointments, ordering him clothes from catalogs, and hiring someone to paint his house. Growing increasingly indignant, Fred emphasizes the neighbor’s frequent desires to “do something special” for him and his wife. Finally, Fred explodes, “You may be my boss, but this discussion is completely off-base. How we deal with our neighbors is a purely private matter. This is an invasion of my privacy!” He then walks out.

Discussion Questions

1. Did you err in discussing the matter with Fred in the first place?

2. Is this a “purely private matter” outside your purview?

3. If “no” to either, how do you proceed from here?

Case Assessment

Mark Woodard, Assistant County Administrator and Chief of Staff, Pinellas County, Florida:

Divining the difference between an employee’s activities within and outside of the workplace can be a challenge for many managers. In the final analysis, managers should focus on an employee’s adherence

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 51

to the rules and policies of the organization and job performance. To do otherwise can create confusion, ill-will, and ultimately impact the morale and productivity of the employee and possibly the entire workgroup.

In this case, the employee’s (Fred) performance is exemplary, but information provided by a third party (the banker) called into question the activities of Fred’s spouse as it relates to the finances of an elderly neighbor. The potential ethical cloud created by this activity outside of the workplace leads the manager to discuss the matter with Fred.

Th e manager erred in discussing this matter with Fred as the information provided by the banker fell outside of the scope of the

subordinate’s employment. The banker is the party with the fiduciary responsibility to protect his customer, the elderly neighbor, not the manager. The ethical obligation falls with him. Further, the banker may have breached his responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of his client by sharing this information with the manager.

Certainly, the manager has an obligation to contact the banker and suggest that the appropriate local or state agency (Department of Elder Affairs) be contacted. He should have taken this position during his initial conversation with the banker. The banker previously reported that the neighbor was “confused and incoherent”; therefore, it is impor- tant to determine his competency. This determination is best made by the state, which may appoint a guardian to ensure that the elderly neighbor’s best interests are represented. The manager should also bring closure to this issue with Fred by apologizing for raising his outside activities in the workplace.

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

I think the county finance director was way off base talking to Fred about the phone call from the banker. The fact that Fred is an exem- plary employee should, at the least, give him the benefit of the doubt. Th ere is absolutely no reason to think that there is any illegal activity, certainly none that involves his work. The banker has every right to be concerned, but he has his own avenues of investigation. The suspicion on the part of the banker amounts to nothing more than anecdotal information. For all we know, Fred and his wife could have been invest- ing the money on behalf of the old man in conjunction with other fam- ily members. The boss jumped to a conclusion based on nothing more than hearsay from someone who is only a social acquaintance. Unless the boss has some direct evidence of his own to indicate that what Fred and his wife are doing adversely impacts his job—and the fact that

52 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

his performance is exemplary indicates that it isn’t—Fred’s boss should have stayed out of it.