EPA Corruption at the Top and Response From Below

Guerrilla Government and the EPA Guerrilla government within the EPA grew out of a response to various failed administrations, which were led by men who did not approach their leadership position with the type of virtue and character that those passionate about the environment and the organization would have preferred to see.

Thus, under Russell, for example, the EPA had become a shell of what it was supposed to be, with Russell using EPA funds for self-pleasure and even blocking clean-ups and environmental action for occurring as in the case of the smelter complex in Idaho (O'Leary, 2014, p. 61).

The ethics issue that Russell violated was his lack of transparency, which resulted in dishonesty among the administration and a failure to live up to the expectations of the mission of the EPA by getting in bed with big business instead of holding business's toes to the fire and demanding that they clean-up their salvage sites in Idaho (O'Leary, 2014, p. 61). The ethics issues that the political appointees faced in this case was dishonesty overall.

Conflict of interest abounded, as both Russell and Spencer attempted to steep the EPA in with big business, ensuring that no real policing of business protections for the protection of communities and the environment would occur (O'Leary, 2014, p. 48). Thus, Russell was guilty of acts affecting a personal financial interest when he purchased photographs of himself with EPA funds after his resignation (O'Leary, 2014, p. 60; United States Office of Government Ethics, 2015, p. 19). Likewise, using public money for self purposes as Russell did was a violation of Federal Ethical Law 18 U.S.C.

§ 641 on public money, property and records (United States Office of Government Ethics, 2015, p. 82). Career employees were likely motivated to use guerrilla tactics as a solution despite the risk to their careers because they were truly more concerned about the corruption at the top and the negative impact it was having on the world, the environment and the society than they were about their careers.

These were not selfish people but rather individuals with a true and honest concern about the objectives that their organization was supposed to strive to meet. I believe their choice of guerrilla action was ethical because there was no alternative: when the men at the top are acting in a corrupt manner, one has to bring them to justice by appealing to a third party.

In this case, guerrillas within the EPA were "lining up" outside the office of the auditor of the Inspector General's office to give evidence and testimony against Russell (O'Leary, 2014, p. 61). These actions affected the organization and public policy by drawing light to what was going on in the EPA -- but they also gave a black eye to the organization because they showed that the people running it were corrupt and dishonorable, leading to characterizations being made that hurt the EPA's reputation as a good and worthwhile organization.

This tarnishing is difficult to overcome because even while lower level workers may win a few battles via guerrilla tactics, the much larger war continues as they find that they are working within a system that is designed to facilitate corruption because of the crony capitalism that keeps its engine running, typically manifested through gifts from outside, the hiring of friends, the turning of a blind eye to the wrongdoing of certain entities that expect a handout from administrators, all of which is condemned by the U.S.

Office of Government Ethics (2000). Actions that leaders within the EPA might have taken to manage guerrilla government could have been to listen to the complaints and criticisms of those who were obviously justifiably outraged by what was going on. They then could have better assessed their own leadership and seen that it was wanting considering the mandate of the organization and the expectations of its leaders.

By being honest and forthright about its own failings, leaders could have turned the ship around before public scandal was made, and this could have helped maintain the EPA's reputation better. Such actions might have changed the outcome of the situation by ensuring a more active role of the EPA in the cleanup of sites like the salvage yards in Idaho that Russell attempted to gloss over and ignore (O'Leary, 2014, p. 61).

The potential lessons for public administrators from this case study is that honesty truly is the best policy -- even if one makes mistakes in the past that show clear ethical violations of Federal Ethics laws; there is still the opportunity to make amends, to embark on real self-criticism and right the ship according to the mandate given you.