Ethical conflicts in water vendor selection for Eaton City

Ethics Case Study Leadership in a public sector organization can be a complex process because of the myriad of competing obligations and duties. As a result, public administrators are faced with different kinds of internal and external conflicts. For instance, a conflict can arise when a public administrator is required to carry out mutually exclusive acts by stakeholders with legitimate authority over the individual. In light of the complex nature of duties and obligations of public administrators, ethics is an important element toward the delivery of public services in an efficient and effective manner. Shafritz et al. (2017) state that the field of public administration is characterized by four levels of ethics i.e. personal morality, professional ethics, organizational ethics, and social ethics. This paper examines an ethical issue surrounding the selection of a water vendor by Eaton’s city council.

Facts and Issues

After managing the City of Eaton’s water system for 12 years, Montgomery County has requested Easton City to start managing its own water system at the beginning of the second half of the next calendar year. Eaton’s City Council has embarked on efforts to identify a suitable water vendor as part of efforts to manage its own water system. Mona has advised the city mayor about Councilmember Baker’s initiatives in conducting site visits with all probable water vendors, contacting previous clients of all finalists, and engagement in a day-long session with the proposal evaluation panel (Hudson, 2012). The city mayor is aware of the evaluation panel’s rationale for the water vendor recommendation that Mona included in the staff report. However, the final decision on who to select as the water vendor is yet to be made since there are a few steps remaining that would take at least three months to complete. During a lunch meeting with Mona, the city mayor indicated that he had contacted and was pushing for a different vendor than the one recommended by Mona. Mona was comfortable with this since deliberations on contract award would be publicly debated and voted for at the city council meeting. The city mayor is locked in a fierce political battle with Councilmember Baker who seemingly favors the staff recommended water vendor. Through a fairly routine and normal request, the city mayor requested for a continuance on contract award for a water vendor to the next city council meeting. Prior to the vote on the motion of continuance, Councilmember Baker boasted about her involvement in the process and potential benefits of each vendor. While the motion passed and the rest of the agenda proceeded smoothly during the council meeting, the city mayor asked for an executive session scheduled to deliberate on a personal issue immediately after the meeting. Once the meeting was over, Mona and the city attorney sat in their seats for the executive session before the city attorney and city manager were asked to leave the room. The official report from the executive session was noted and indicated that the personal issue had been discussed but no vote was taken and no further action was necessary to be reported. Contrary to existing rules on conversations in council executive sessions, two councilmembers notified Mona of the city mayor’s attempt to terminate her. Mona suspects the city mayor is corrupt and should be exposed through an investigation by the office of the city attorney. Mona is facing a dilemma of whether to share her suspicions with the city attorney, the vice-mayor or Councilmember Baker.

Actors

Mona Hill – the city manager with 20-year experience as a public administration professional and the first female chief executive of the City of Eaton. She is in charge of municipal organizations and activities that seek to promote homegrown economic development and local employment. Given her role in the city council, Mona has a key role to play in this case as she harbors suspicion regarding the ethical conduct of the city mayor. City Mayor – he has been elected city councilmember twice and has provided six years of community leadership to the City of Eaton. Through his leadership, the city mayor has played a critical role in the city’s general economic growth and been involved in other initiatives like the development of regional traffic management and affordable housing policy measures. The Vice-mayor – she is seen as an articulate voice of the people by acting as a political mediator or bridge between the mayor and Councilmember Baker. The vice-mayor has an important role to play in this case since she is a key decision-maker in the City of Eaton. She would help establish whether Mona’s suspicions are right and play a critical role in ethical decision making regarding the city mayor’s conduct. Councilmember Baker – She acts as the representative of the common person within the City of Eaton. As a representing voice of the community, she has had numerous political battles with the city mayor who she considers elitist. Councilmembers – they have a role to play in promoting the effective running and operations of the City of Eaton. They make key decisions regarding the policy initiatives and activities undertaken by the city council. City Attorney – a key member of the city’s executive team who provides legal advice to the city council. He would play a key role in this case with respect to investigating Mona’s suspicion and ethical conduct of Councilmember Baker and the vice-mayor in leaking executive session conversations that ought to be confidential.

Application of Core Concepts

PA 6674 – Bribery – This term refers to the illegal acceptance of money or other valuable considerations in exchange for special favors from public servants having to do with their official duties. Investigations into the probable corruption of the city mayor would help establish whether he received bribes from his favored water vendor. This would be tantamount to unprofessional conduct and result in the removal of the water vendor from the shortlist. The process would, in turn, help the city council to make an appropriate decision on the water vendor to select. PA 6674 – Retaliation – This term refers to the act of attempting to harm someone because he/she has not acquiesced to one’s wishes. The city mayor’s attempts to terminate Mona precipitously should be examined to determine whether it is an act of retaliation. This is critical because Mona favored a different water vendor from the one recommended by the city mayor. Mona also needs to examine whether her next course of action is acts of retaliation against the city mayor for attempts to terminate her precipitously. PA 6674 – Whistleblowing – This is the act of exposing corrupt practices in government where it is surmised that others are not working in the public interest but to the benefits of themselves. Mona’s next course of action could be whistleblowing, which would expose the city mayor’s probable involvement in corruption in the selection of a water vendor for the City of Eaton. PA 6674 – Accountability – This term refers to the extent to which one must answer to a higher authority -legal or organizational, for one’s actions in society at large or within one’s particular organizational positions. This concept could be applicable in this scenario if the key actors or players take appropriate measures to examine the city mayor’s conduct. Through such measures, the city council would not only keep the city mayor accountable but also demonstrate their accountability to the public that elected them. PA 6674 – Corrupt – This term refers to dishonest behavior or more specifically, behavior that is prone to bribery. The city mayor could be deemed corrupt if Mona’s suspicions are proven and there is evidence of bribery by the city mayor’s preferred water vendor. PA 6674 - Professional Ethics – This concept refers to personal and government rules that shape behavior within the context of a particular profession. The action and conduct of the city mayor in the selection of the water vendor and efforts to terminate Mona precipitously should be examined to determine whether they violate professional ethics.

Alternatives

Mona should share her suspicions with the city attorney and the vice-mayor to help commence investigations regarding the professional and ethical conduct of the city mayor. Mona should confront the city mayor in attempts to identify the root cause of the problem and resolve the personal issue between them. Mona should ignore her suspicions and moved on as if nothing happened since the city mayor had failed in attempts to get rid of her at the council executive session.

Evaluation Criteria

Ethically correct Fairness Justice

Decision My recommended alternative would be for Mona to notify the city attorney and the vice-mayor of her suspicions regarding the professional and ethical conduct of the city mayor. Based on the city council’s existing rules and regulations, investigations regarding the city mayor’s conduct should commence. Mona should notify the city attorney and the vice-mayor of her suspicions regardless of her lack of any facts to support it. As key players and decision-makers in Eaton’s city council, the city attorney and vice-mayor would institute proper mechanisms to investigate the city mayor in order to find a suitable solution to the issue or problem.
The most important criterion in this recommended alternative is to establish whether the city mayor’s actions in selecting his preferred water vendor and attempts to terminate Mona were ethically correct. This is critical because the core of this issue is the ethical conduct of the city mayor, which could have significant impacts on the management of its own water system. When conducting the investigations, the key actors should ensure fairness, which would entail providing both parties in the issue of equal opportunities for a hearing. Mona and the city mayor should be granted fair hearing during the investigation process. Once the investigations are carried out, the city council should make a decision based on justice. In this case, the interests of the various stakeholders, particularly the community should be taken into consideration when making a decision based on the outcomes of the investigation. Implementation and Implementation Obstacles