Withholding Information: When Is it Ethical or Unethical?

3.10 Withholding Information: When Is it Ethical or Unethical?

Controversies: 3.12, 3.13, 4.10, 6.17 Key Words: deception, truthfulness, code of ethics, recruitment, city manager Case Complexity → High CD: 4.12 Ethics Management in Cities and Counties CD: 7.3 Withholding Information (PP) Th is case includes ethical reasoning questions.

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 61

You are a candidate for a very competitive, high profile city manager job. During the search process conducted by a reputable consulting search firm you are asked, “If we conducted a thorough background check on you, would we find anything in your background which might embarrass a future employer?” You pause for a moment as your mind flashes back to an allegation that was made about you when you were a city manager of a small community. It was alleged by two staff members of the commu- nity hospital where your wife was terminally ill that you slapped and verbally abused her. The police investigated the allegation as did the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). During the investigation you assert that the staff members misinterpreted a situation in which your wife was choking and you were helping her. Your wife states to the investigators that you did not abuse her. Neither the police nor the DCF investigations report that there is any physical evidence (e.g., redness on the face) that you had slapped her. Nonetheless, the investigative report is sent to the state attorney to determine whether or not to press charges. The state attorney declines to pursue the matter due to a lack of evidence. Thus, the allegation is unsubstantiated.

Decision 1: How should you reply to the question asked by the search firm? Should you or should you not disclose the incident? Let’s assume that you reason that the incident was entirely personal and was found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, you decide to respond, “There is nothing in my background that would embarrass a future employer.”

You receive an invitation to interview. During the interview, you stress your honesty and high ethical standards. Decision 2: Do you or do you not disclose the incident to the city’s HR staff and

the city commissioners? Once more you decide to not disclose information about the incident for the same reason you did not disclose it to the search firm.

Th e interview goes very well. City commissioners are impressed and decide to offer you a $170,000 job contract. The local newspaper reports the story with the

headline: “Ethics and Experience Bring Jones to the Fore.” On the day the contract is to be voted on, city commissioners receive infor- mation that you were accused of slapping and verbally abusing your wife in the hospital where she was terminally ill. The commission decides to call an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. You are invited to appear before the commission and answer their questions.

Decision 3: Do you accept the commission’s invitation? You decide “yes” as the air needs to be cleared and you need the full trust and

confidence of your new bosses. During the questioning, you assert, “I haven’t lied.

I have not told an untruth.” One commissioner asks, “Why didn’t you tell us about this allegation?” Decision 4: What do you say?

1. I forgot.

2. I didn’t think anyone would find out.

3. You didn’t ask me.

62 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

4. It was merely an unsubstantiated allegation as my wife and I had a very loving relationship right up to the moment of her death.

5. Withholding information is acceptable under these very personal circumstances.

6. I thought the allegation, although untrue, would place my candidacy in jeopardy if it became public.

Outcome

Th e commission decides to postpone approving your contract for two weeks while they seek more background information about you. Meanwhile, you have with- drawn as a city manager finalist for several other positions and are now worried

about ending up without any job. You muse, “Am I being treated fairly by the city commission? The media? I know

I haven’t done anything wrong. Why am I being subjected to such scrutiny?”

Investigation Results

A three-member committee, which included Commissioner Kent, the director of HR, and a representative of the police department, was formed and traveled to the community where you had served as the city manager for four years.

After visiting the community and meeting with former and current town coun- cil members, the town manager who was assistant town manager under you, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, a police sergeant, and the town attorney, the committee reported that “we have no concerns about his honesty or integrity.” Commissioner Kent summed up his thoughts to the city commission by stating, “You exercised poor judgment as a candidate who sold himself on honesty, integrity, and character, but that is not a sufficient reason to not offer a contract. Poor judg- ment is not an unethical act.”

Th e city commission voted 4-1 to approve your $170,000 a year contract. “Congratulations,” said Commissioner Ann, “we want you here as soon as pos-

sible.” Meanwhile, commissioners decide to withhold the final payment to the head hunter until the city attorney determines whether or not they could penalize the fi rm for not conducting a thorough background investigation.

Discussion Questions

1. Is there a difference between poor judgment and committing an unethical act?

2. How will you go about convincing the one city commissioner who voted against hiring you to change his mind about you?

3. Should you accept a job as city manager without the full support of the gov- erning board? Why or why not?

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 63

Ethical Reasoning Questions

1. Is there an ethical issue facing the candidate? Did he display ethical sensitiv- ity in answering the search firm’s question: “Is there anything in your back- ground that might embarrass a future employer?”

2. What is the ethical issue?

3. What might be done to resolve the situation?

4. Does the preferred course of action satisfy the needs/preferences of the primary stakeholders?

5. Is the preferred course of action ethical?

Case Assessment

Jim Leidlein, City Manager, Harper Woods, Michigan:

He should have disclosed this to the recruiter. He should have been prepared for the question about the background check (a common question used by recruiters and hiring managers … I use it myself). He should have admitted to it when asked and have written docu- mentation showing that the accusation was groundless. He certainly could have downplayed its significance but, nonetheless, has to own up to it.

In our business, it is essential to be up front. Most importantly, it is the morally and ethically correct thing to do. As well, he should have been aware that somebody likely would have dug it up, which they did. Police unions and fire unions are notorious for doing their own back- ground checks on new or prospective city managers by calling their counterparts in the city that the manager is coming from. It has hap- pened to me. (Fortunately, they did not find anything!) And, of course, there is our new friend Google.

Recruiters and, I hope, city councils understand that city man- agers are exposed to public scrutiny and accusations made are not always as they appear. He could have used this as part of his approach.

Several years ago, a council member of mine, who was not a sup- porter, spread wild and vicious rumors about me all over town. It involved a drunk driving accident in which I was supposedly driving after leaving a topless bar at two in the morning with one of the danc- ers in the back seat. Absolutely, totally false … How he came up with this is beyond me as absolutely none of it ever happened. I handled it and, fortunately, it never made the local paper. But, it could have, and I would feel obligated to admit the publicity to future potential employ- ers or recruiters.

64 ◾ Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies

Ed Daley, City Manager, Hopewell, Virginia and former President, International City-County Management Association:

This is an easy one from my perspective. The applicant has an obliga- tion to reveal and explain the accusations before they hear about it from someone else—and they will hear about it from someone else. But think about where he would be if it came out later or from another source—we always say that ethics and integrity separate us from the politicians!

An applicant should always “over disclose” when there is any doubt. Th is is clearly a failure and “I didn’t think it mattered” doesn’t cut

the mustard. If the applicant had been hired and then the governing body learned of this, there would always be a question of what else is the manager hiding. The only thing worse would be if the news media reported it as a surprise to the governing body.

Mary Jane Kuffner Hirt, Professor of Political Science, Indiana University of Pennsylvania:

I would ask the search firm how they were going to handle the information I had shared. If the search firm discloses the information, and an interview is scheduled, there should be some expectation that the incident and its resolution were accepted by the governing body. If the search firm does not disclose the information, then I think the candidate should be ready to provide the information … Here, the key

is what the search firm does with the information. Ultimately, the governing body will be responsible for answering questions should the person be hired.

Rebecca Keeler, J.D. and ASPA Member:

In my view, particularly given the high profile of the position, this his- tory should have been disclosed at the interview. The incident was one that had potential for a criminal charge and actually triggered an inves- tigation—facts that render it relevant in my mind. Disclosure would go far to build trust and reveal the applicant’s integrity. And, it would defuse later malicious revelations—thereby protecting the public’s trust in the official and his office. For the reasons just stated, I would refer to guideline no. 4 in Patrick Dobel’s book Public Integrity (1999, 184), “Keep the circle of scrutiny to the lowest possible number.” The interview or meetings with individual members of the city commis- sion would provide an opportunity for controlled disclosure—which

Professionalism and Ethics ◾ 65

might have mitigated the impact of the news from an outside source just before voting on the contract.

Th e second step in the hiring process (the interview) raises the question about withholding the information in the initial inquiry if it really was relevant (as I just argued). This is a classic dilemma in the job search context and is important to discuss. In discussing this kind of dilemma while training local government employees, trainees/ employees often came to the conclusion that the interview is the more appropriate forum for the revelation because it is more protective of the individual’s privacy. Though there was a strong contingent that would likely consider the information totally private, so not subject to disclo- sure at all. But, my trainees were most often front-line supervisors, not executives. They generally agreed that the relevancy standards change depending on the position sought.

Author’s Note: This is a hypothetical case based on a real case reported in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune June 2, 5, 13 & 19, 2007.

Controversies