Better to ask permission or to ask for forgiveness? 11

[PM]

A colleague who works in my public agency provides expert design advice and related services to a sister agency (ie. our client) who themselves collaborate with a third quasi-independent public organization for which they have statutory control. This latter organization announced plans to close one of their public facilities in order to save operating cost. The closure plan was very controversial, affecting the families of many in the public. As it turns out, my colleague was one of the many who was negatively affected by the planned closure.

On his own initiative and time, he visited the building where existing operations were planned to be consolidated and conducted a health and safety survey. A few days later, at a public meeting hosted by the managing organization, he publically challenged the organization's plans for consolidating operations to one distant existing building by concluding that building was infested with mold and had many structural deficiencies.

My co-worker never discussed his positions with supervisors or staff before the fact. He was not directly or indirectly providing services related to the subject facilities as part of his employment duties. The local news reported these sensational new findings and our sister agency 'blew-up' with anger and embarrassment. After the crap was cleaned from the fan, my colleague was targeted by our client agency for official sanction and complaints of conflict of interest, disloyalty and deception.

If my colleague were your subordinate, what action (if any) would you take and what positions would you take?

 

[redtrumpet]

The fact that your colleague undertook this investigation on his own time and aired his dirty laundry in public, without discussing the issue with the organization beforehand and giving them a chance to respond, does not speak well for his motive. The only time one can can reasonably take that action is when the public safety is imminently threatened. It doesn't seem that was the case here. Instead, it looks like he has an axe to grind.

There is also the question of opinion versus fact. Is it merely his opinion these problems exist, or did he take the time to document the deficiencies in detail with basis?

At best I would reprimand this person for the manner in which he chose to proceed. If his concerns are undocumented and in the realm of opinion rather than fact, I would be inclined to terminate the person.

 

[TheBlacksmith]

He clearly was not intending to help anyone but himself. He violated most tenets of polite society, professionalism and integrity. There are deperate situations where this may be excusable, i.e. the space shuttle Challenger engineer should have done this. I would be inclined to terminate the person also. I am sure there was violation of company procedures and policies that would majke the firing stick in case of litigation.

Blacksmith

 

[etch]

First and foremost the person should have discussed his findings with his superiors, and given them a chance to investigate his "claims" more thoroughly. To go direct to a meeting and air these findings, which were no doubt sensationalised in the papers, leaves the company acutely embarrassed at something that has come out of left field with no warning.

Looking from the outside, it seems this employer was either trying to stop the merger, or trying to score points. Either way going out of the company to air the dirty laundry is career suicide

 

[PM]

Interesting points made so far, and I will admit that my initial “reaction” was negative. However,
I thought about the situation (ie. a bit of left brain activity) and concluded differently.

1. There was no conflict of interest because neither my colleague, or his agency had a direct
interest in the situation. My colleague made no attempt to influence the outcome through his
“office” by co-opting our management to “get involved”. To have attempted same, might very
well have lead to a “conflict of interest” conclusion. His employer had no involvement in the
situation other than being the traditional principle source of expertise on such matters to its client
agency, who itself has a controlling interest in the organization who closed the facility.

2. This leads to the notion of “disloyalty”. Private sector organizations are often directed by
individuals with long tenure. Not surprisingly, they often expect personal loyalty from
subordinates. Public organizations, on the other hand, usually rotate their directors/chief
executives every few years, thereby making personal loyalty impractical. Public organizations
usually expect staff to be loyal to the organization and its mission. With this in mind, my co-
worker seems to have applied his skills and knowledge to support his agency’s mission (ie.
healthy & safe facilities for the public). The fact that my colleague himself, is a member of the
Public, doesn’t change the principle. The Public interest and the agency interest are
indivisible, so serving one, by definition, cannot be disloyal to the other.

3. The latter point of “deception” seems mute. How can a presentation before a public meeting
be considered deceptive unless the author says one thing to one audience and something else to
another audience? Findings are recorded, they may be rebutted or refuted. The author is known
and his credentials and all relevant affiliations are a matter of public record. My colleague was
neither asked by, or offered an opinion to either his employer or our client (ie. the latter option
could have been considered unethical, qv. 1 above). To co-opt his employer into a matter they
were not involved with could be considered inappropriate. Therefore, the only positions put
forward by my co-worker are those at the public meeting and these were described as sincere and consistent with the agency's mission. This leaves the question whether it is ethical for a Public
official to participate in a Public debate, and whether doing so amounts to deception.

You may find it worth noting that, the head of our client agency was recruited a year or so ago, from the
Private sector, where he had decades of experience. This may explain the intensity of emotion he
directed toward our agency because of his dashed expectation for personal loyalty.

This brings to mind that famous allegory about “ . . . being wary of pointing your finger at
someone, because three fingers point back at you . . .”. Is it ethical for a Public agency head to use his office and influence to punish a member of the Public (who also happens to be a Public servant) for their publically expressed views.

PS. I’m not sure if there is a right answer to any of this, but like an onion you can just peel away another layer and find more to think about.

 

[jproj]

PM:

Unless you initially misspoke of the situation, your colleague does have a direct interest in the situation.

"As it turns out, my colleague was one of the many who was negatively affected by the planned closure."

You have to ask yourself this... if an unrelated company were moving into the new building, would your colleague have taken the same initiative as a "good public servant"? Possibly, but I doubt it. If your colleague was genuinely concerned with the problem, he should have approached the company that planned to move into the building. If they choose to ignore the findings (assuming the findings were accurate), I think he would have a good motive for going public with the information. BUT, that's not what he did and his company has (indirectly... through your sister company) paid a price for his mistake. I think they would have a pretty valid claim against him if they want to terminate his employment.

Using the media / public sentiment in order for your colleague to get his way (so he is not negatively affected) is not whistle blowing, it's unethical and it's also (as etch stated) career suicide.

Best Regards,

jproj

 

[Hush]

Regarding whether the man should be loyal to his company, maybe not. However, the code of ethics for professional engineers in Alberta requires them to act in the best interests of the employer, the client, the public, and the profession. If there was no imminent danger to the public he did not act in the best interests of his employer or his employer's client and in Alberta may have been subject to disciplinary action.

 

[PM]

Thanks jproj for bringing an error I made to light. I meant to write, " . . .neither my colleague, or his agency had a direct employment interest in the situation . . .". That is to say our agency was not involved or consulted in any way concerning this proposed closure. We took no position or offered no advice to our long term client, who probably was aware of the pending closure. For this reason there can be no conflict of interest between personal interests and employer interests.

Interesting other point you raise. My colleague obviously would not have done anything in the case you present, because he would not have known about the defects. If he were not impacted by the pending closure, he would not have inspected the building on his own time. I doubt anyone would unilaterally conduct an inspection of a building they have nothing to do with and they hear is about to be closed merely because it is controlled by one of his clients. Because this building impacted his family, he undertook the inspection.

By the way, the current thinking around here suggests that our client paid no greater price than some annoyance. It's beginning to look (even to them) as if they are going to come out of this with their reputation enhanced.

Regards,

 

[redtrumpet]

Okay, now I'm really confused. You say your colleague did not have a direct employment interest in the situation and so there was no conflict of interest. In the next breath you say "because this building impacted his family, he undertook the inspection" and "if he were not impacted by the pending closure, he would not have inspected the building on his own time".

He may not have strictly been in conflict of interest with his employer, but these are not the actions of an objective, impartial professional acting in the name of the public good. Based on all of the information you have given, it still appears this person acted out of ulterior motives and was at best unprofessional and at worst, unethical. I would not want this person working for me. I would grass his ass and report him to the engineering association for possible disciplinary action.

 

[PSE]

I would agree with Redtrumpet. If you look at the motivational information PM provides it appears to be personal rather than professional. That he did not run through the "chain of command" with his findings but rather went immediately to a public forum does not speak well for his professional credibility in this instance. Going outside the system (either in the public or private sector) is not to be undertaken lightly. Obviously neither your colleage's employer or sister company enjoyed being blindsided. All of this appears in one form or another in the previous posts. In terms of disciplinary actions, I would look at this in context with his performance history although my inclination would be at least a documented letter of reprimand signed by him and his supervisor, copied to him and his employee file.

 

[PSE]

PM,

Your question as to "...whether it is ethical for a Public
official to participate in a Public debate, and whether doing so amounts to deception." could be an interesting topic for a new thread, why not post it as one.

Regards,

PSE

 

[buzzp]

I think the guy did it for revenge. However, there needs to be more engineers standing up for what is right vs. loyalty to the company. 20 years ago companies did show some loyalty to the engineer. Nowadays, most companies show zero loyalty to engineers when it comes time to paying the piper, even the best engineers the company has.

 

[PM]

Let me add a few more details to the picture. Perhaps I didn't emphasize enough the point that all the agencies involved are government departments, or subordinate organizations established by statute. Additionally, I'm unaware of any malice toward either our client or thier surogate. I can't be certain there is none, but there certainly is no evidence of such. I personally try to avoid questioning the motives of others because it clouds my judgement of the few facts that are typically available in such cases.

PSE's suggestion of starting another thread concerning Public officials participating in Public debate clearly suggest that he/she believes the issues are separate. I took it for granted that this is the central issue.

Since recently becoming a Civil Servant, I've noticed a substantial difference in professional and business ethic within the Public Service compared to similarly sized private sector organizations I've worked in. I've studied ethics now for more than 15 years and find the ethical conflict between personal interests and corporate interest to be the most interesting. Whether it's 'whistle blowing' or what ever you'd call this case, you don't often come across real examples of these conflicts.

Candidly, I once thought Civil Servants were "unethical" when viewed from my former vantage point of a private sector consulting firm. My new perspective implies the exact opposite, (ie. private sector are unethical). I came across an intersting book by Jane Jacobs called Systems of Survival. She basically lays out the premise that in business there are two ethical norms expressed by two distinctly different cultures, (ie. a commercial culture and a guardian culture). The book is not a bad read (given the apparent dry subject matter), and it made me aware there is no one correct ethical standard in business.

By the way Ms. Jacob's premise predicts that commercial cultures would find my colleague's behaviour as unethical while guardian cultures might find it the reverse. It might be worth noting how many respondent to this thread work in the commercial realm. Obviously, one way of looking at this case is no more correct than the other, but it does highlight why we often see the same facts in a quite differnt light.

Regards,

 

[vpl]

Jumping on the bandwagon here as government employee who works for an agency (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) that has a statuary interest in maintaining public health and safety, I offer my view of the situation:

1) You say your collegue conducted a survey on his own time under his own intiiative. However, he probably represented himself as a member of your agency in order to get access - or are you saying that anyone could come off the street and do a survey?

2) If he represented himself as a government employee in order to gain access, then he may very well be in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations. I specifically refer you to 5 CFR Part 2635; however you should also check the particular Section that relates to your department (for example, NRC is 5CFR Part 5801)

3) There should be an official process to be followed for allegations of misconduct by a government employee. This process should be used, rather than trying to gather public support.

4) Personally, I don't believe the individual acted in good faith. While I know first had it's pretty near impossible to fire a government employee, if I were his supervisor, I'd have a long talk with him about ethics. Patricia Lougheed

 

[PSE]

PM

My suggestion as to starting a new thread is that it would be "highlighted" as such rather than embedded within the case study that we have been dissecting. This would perhaps allow additional people to find the thread and broaden the scope of the discussion.

Regards,

PSE

 

[PM]

VPL
1. Actually he never identified himself as anything other than one of the individuals affected by the pending facility closure. As it happens the building is a public building and therefore generally open to the public, but in this case the public were actually invited by the building manager to inspect the facility where operations were planned to be relocated. I understand that about 100+ people took the opportunity to inspected the facility, however I doubt there was anyone else with my colleague's credentials.
2. Excellent point you raise. While we don't have that particular law on our books, it remains a civil wrong to misrepresent yourself and clearly would be a disciplinable offense before our professional licensing authority.
4. It's not difficult to fire civil servant here. I can think of a few examples in past years.

Any thoughts on my suggestion that public servants have different ethical standards (ie. not better standards)than private sector employees, and particularly a duty to the public that exceeds their duty to their employer. In my mind, the practical constraints on civil servants to act directly to protect the public welfare, or to a lesser degree, participate in public discourse on matters of public interest are complicated and filled with personal danger.

Regards,

 

[vpl]

PM (warning long and opinionated! )

Ethics for government employees is a subject I feel rather strongly about (maybe because I am one). I know that, even in personal interactions where I answer questions about what is going on with the US nuclear facilities, I am, in a sense "representing the government." So here's some additional comments (note: I'm basing this on my knowledge of USNRC regulations. You'd have to check to see what governing regulations cover your particular department/agency. I can't believe there aren't any!)

If the building was opened for public viewing - such that anyone (from the local street person on) could enter the building without having to show any sort of employee ID, then your collegue had a right to enter and participate in the public tour/ inspection, what ever it was. He also had the right to represent his public views in a public meeting (with some limitations). However, if he used his position to gain access in any way, shape, or form or used knowledge developed from his position to develop his comments, then he stepped over the line.

For example, if my local nuclear plant offers tours to the general public and I go on one without ever identifying myself as a government employee, and raise a concern based on personal views from outside my government obtained knowledge base, then I'm probably ok. If I go on a tour and raise concerns because of issues I know of due to my government position, I've crossed over the line. If the tours are limited to people who are badged (and I am) and I go on one, then I've represented myself as a government employee, because I had to use my badge to gain access.

Regarding public sector employees having a different ethical standard than private sector ones, I strongly feel that we have (or should have) a strong ethical standard to put the public's interest before our own. However, given that, we have to make sure it is the PUBLIC'S interest and that the issue truly has an adverse PUBLIC impact. Additionally, unless there is a strong and immediate danger to the public, government employees should work within the system first as anything they say can be taken as being an official government position.

For example (and this is a completely off-the-wall exageration that wouldn't occur in the US) if I went on a tour and the utility was handing around a piece of irradiated fuel where people could be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, I have an obligation to step in and tell them to stop immediately. However, if the utility is talking about the benefits and drawbacks of taking potassium iodide pills, and I disagree with what they're saying, but no pills are being handed out and there isn't an actual emergency, then the health and safety of the general public isn't truly affected and I should go through normal channels to discuss any issues. Patricia Lougheed

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Patricia,

This is a compliment. In my experience, it is rare to see someone in public service with such a firm grasp of ethics. I couldn't agree more with your opinions. Keep up the good work, and decency may yet prevail as our country comes through this time of revelation of one impropriety after another in business. My hat is off to you.


Blacksmith

 

[PSE]

Patricia,

I second Blacksmiths comments.

Regards,

PSE

 

[PM]

Like the fella says: "I didn't have time to write a short report !"

I completely agree with both Blacksmith and PSE's sentiments (qv above), but in my experience I've seen singular ethical behaviour routinely among public servants. Unfortuneatly, I've seen the worst behaviour also, but thankfully not nearly as often. I suspect that having a strong moral ethos is part of the raison d'etre for individuals to seek out public service.

If I may be allowed to exaggerate to make the point I'm leading to; it is that public officials rarely participate on public issues outside their employment circles, and that such self censorship may be seen as unethical.

Blacksmith writes " . . .if my local nuclear plant offers tours to the general public and I go on one without ever identifying myself as a government employee, and raise a concern based on personal views from outside my government obtained knowledge base, then I'm probably ok. If I go on a tour and raise concerns because of issues I know of due to my government position, I've crossed over the line". (Bold text added for emphasis).

Blacksmith goes on to write " . . .Additionally, unless there is a strong and immediate danger to the public, government employees should work within the system first as anything they say can be taken as being an official government position".

Do I take the wrong inference, namely that public officials should be effectively restricted to internal (employment) processes only and that participation in a bone fidae public process is somehow improper? I note that redtrumpet, hush and VPL all advocated the notion that 'imminent', or 'immediate' danger to the public should be the only acceptable trigger for direct public interaction. Similarly, PSE introduced the thought that "going outside the [employment] system by participating in a public forum speaks poorly for the public servant's professionalisim.

Implicit in these positions is the suspicion that public servants are at odds with the public welfare, the interests of their employer, or worse.

This leads me back to the notion that if public officials rarely if ever participate in legitimate public discourse, how can the lay public learn of the nuances of complex issues affecting their lives? Interestingly, without more (presumably less controversial) participation by public officials, how could citizens learn of the ethical standards their public officials consider on their behalf almost daily (. . . well probably not daily, but certainly monthly)?

The above noted sentiments appear to be strongly held among public servants, but are these self imposed constraints appropriate?

Regards,

PS VPL Thanks for your well thought out arguments.