responding
soosa
ACC461COOMENTS.docx1) If You Need Love, Get a Puppy:
The main theme of If You Need Love, Get a Puppy revolves around Will’s relationship with his best friend’s wife (Jess) and his obligation to conduct the audit of the Town of Rosedale independently. Throughout the case, Will is put in uncomfortable situations in which he must remain professionally skeptical, gather evidence, and validate the receipt of cash payments while navigating his personal relationship with Jess. The title of the case perfectly illustrates this conflict because Will ultimately discovers evidence of possible theft and must chose either to jeopardize his relationship with Jess or abide by Auditing’s Code of Ethics. Will faces the familiarity threat to independence due to his friendship with Jess’s husband. As depicted in the case, Will’s relationship with Jess may incline him to make exceptions or compromise his skepticism even without his intent.
Scott London – KPMG Insider Trading:
This case surprised me by how Scott could follow through with providing Bryan Shaw with confidential information even while actively advising his own team of the ethics behind keeping client information confidential. It shows that Scott knew what he was doing was wrong (to which he openly admits). There are multiple factors that may affect an auditors decision making process. I think in this case Scott London knows what he is doing is wrong but makes an exception for his friend because he does not think any stakeholders will be affected and Bryan Shaw needs help financially. Specifically, the principal of Utilitarianism comes to mind because in no part of Scott’s decision making process do I believe he considers: (a) the precedent set by providing insider information (Generalization), (b) his morals and principals (Imperative) and/or (c) how he will view himself having done this (Virtue).
2) It is my belief that the case title “If You Want Love, Get a Puppy” relates to the situations of the case because had Will been looking to be liked by his friends wife he may not have done the right thing in fear of losing his friendships. I think this case displays how auditors must uphold their responsibility to the public interest even when their own relationships, personal and professional, are on the line. The familiarity threat to independence would be relevant in this case. Will was best friends with the husband of one of the assistant Clerk of Court, which can be a threat to both his independence in fact and his independence in appearance. His close relationship with both the Clerk of Court and her husband could also have an influence on Wills professional skepticism. In fact, Will’s relationship with the Clerk of Courts created an ethical problem for himself that may not have existed if the relationship between the two did not exist or at least the ethical problem would not have been as big of a decision for him.
What surprised me about the Scott London case was that Scott really did not have a reason to engage in such illegal activities. Most are drawn to illegal activities out of a feeling of necessity or greed and according to Scott neither were the driving factor. Another, surprising fact was that there was no real monetary gain for Scott. I think it was interesting to know that what gets people in trouble is stealing the information and then profiting from it, rather than just knowing the information by happen stance and then profiting from it.
Some factors that affect an auditors’ decisions/actions in an ethical dilemma include who the stakeholders are, the auditors own responsibilities, alternat decision and their consequences, the auditors character, and the code of professional conduct that is applicable to the area. It can be difficult for auditors to do the right thing because it is not always easy to know what the right thing to do is, as often times ethic principles, code of professional conduct, and personal values conflict and/or are not clear cut in certain situations.
