Write an essay in about 1100-1200 words on the following topic.

Ethics and Public Administration

CHAPTER 11

In Chapter 11, students are introduced to ethics in public

administration. The chapter begins with a theoretical

discussion of administrative ethics, transitioning into a more

practical and real-world discussion of bureaucratic discretion

and the formal rules guiding such discretion. This chapter

also covers codes of ethics; the ways in which public

administrators can combat corruption and unethical

practices; and various self-correcting mechanisms for

shady tactics, including whistleblowing.

348 CHAPTER 11

349Ethics and Public Administration

“Management is the science of which

organizations are but experiments.”

JOHN CONSTABLE English Romantic Painter

(1776-1837)

Postal Workers Mural

“Management is the science of which

organizations are but experiments.”

JOHN CONSTABLE English Romantic Painter

(1776-1837)

Postal Workers Mural

“Always do right. This will gratify

some people and astonish the rest.”

MARK TWAIN Author; Satirist

(1835–1910)

– YOUNG MAN, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THIS PARTICULAR COLLEGE?

– DAD, DON’T ASK STUPID QUESTIONS!

Artist: Y. Shcheglov; Cover of Krokodil [Crocodile] satirical magazine,

1983, No. 19.

350 CHAPTER 11

What Are Ethics? Ethics are grounded in Greek tradition, represented by teleological and deontolog-

ical theories. According to teleological theories, the consequences of actions are the

most critical factor in determining whether an action should be pursued. Derived

from the Greek telos, meaning “result,” teleological theories stress the importance of

maximizing what is “good.” Deontological theories—derived from the Greek deon,

meaning “that which is binding”—stress motives and intentions, as opposed to the

consequences, as the critical factor in making decisions.

Frederickson and Walling (1999, p. 501) note that distinc-

tions “between teleological and deontological ethics might

be dismissed as useless academic differentiation. But, it

matters a great deal whether a human resources manager

bases actions on teleological reasoning, in which the ends

justify the means, as opposed to deontological reasoning, in

which decisions are based upon principle.”

Ethics, according to French and Granrose (1995), “is a set

of normative guidelines directed at resolving conflicts of

interest so as to enhance societal well-being” (cited in

Zinkhan et al. 2007, p. 363). Thompson (1985) provides a

good definition of what constitutes administrative ethics.

Administrative ethics emphasize “(a) the rights and duties

that individuals should respect when they act in ways that seriously affect the well-

being of other individuals and society; and (b) the conditions that collective prac-

tices and policies should satisfy when they similarly affect the well-being of

individuals and society.” Pinpointing all the factors that bring about and reinforce

unethical conduct at the individual and organizational levels is inherently difficult.

Understanding the theoretical and social bases of ethics may shed light on what

motivates unethical behavior. Bottorff (1997) describes ethics as “a body of princi-

ples or standards of human conduct that govern the behavior of individuals and

groups. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is considered a normative science be-

cause it is concerned with the norms of human conduct, as distinguished from for-

mal sciences (such as mathematics and logic) and empirical sciences (such as

chemistry and physics). The study of ethics has been at the heart of intellectual

thought since the earliest writings by the ancient Greeks, and its ongoing contri-

bution to the advancement of knowledge and science continues to make ethics a

relevant, if not vital, aspect of management theory” (p. 57).

Unethical behaviors may result from individual and organizational factors. That is,

unethical behavior may be the result of personal values or personality traits. Orga-

ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS

“[Because power

corrupts,] society’s

demands for moral

authority and

character increase

as the importance

of the position

increases.”

JOHN ADAMS

2nd President of the

United States

(1735–1826)

351Ethics and Public Administration

nizational characteristics may be contributing factors as well. Some organizational

cultures place no importance on whether goals and objectives are accomplished

ethically. Without clear ethical standards within an organizational structure, un-

ethical conduct may actually be encouraged. The “end justifies the means” philos-

ophy—one that rewards “getting the job done” regardless of the potential

– A BRIBE?!.. NEVER!..

– A PRESENT? QUITE ANOTHER MATTER…

Artist: V. Travin; “The Fighting Pencil” group, 1969.

352 CHAPTER 11

consequences—is often referred to as Machiavellianism. The Machiavellian philos-

ophy was set forth by the Italian diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli in his treatise The

Prince, which was written around 1513 and published posthumously in 1532. The

Prince provides recommendations on how rulers can gain and maintain power. The

following excerpt centers on Machiavelli’s “means to ends” philosophy:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or

feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but,

because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared

than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is

to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrate-

ful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you

succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their

blood, property, life and children . . . when the need is

far distant; but when it approaches they turn against

you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their prom-

ises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because

friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by

greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but

they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men

have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for

love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of

men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves

you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not

win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared

whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the

property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is

necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on

proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must

keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly for-

get the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pre-

texts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once

begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs

to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to

find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under

control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disre-

gard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army

united or disposed to its duties. (Machiavelli 1532/1984)

Machiavelli’s recommendations from nearly five centuries ago reinforce what we

observe all too often—instances of corruption and misdeeds in government. There

are countless examples of unethical behaviors perpetuated by agents of govern-

“The time is

always right to do

what is right.”

MARTIN LUTHER

KING, JR.

Civil Rights Leader

(1929–1968)

353Ethics and Public Administration

mental and nongovernmental organizations. The list of unethical conduct by pub-

lic administrators and officials is too long—the 1972 Watergate Hotel break-in and

burglary of the offices of the Democratic National Committee, which led to the

eventual resignation of President Richard M. Nixon; racial profiling within the

ranks of the New Jersey State Police; incidents of detainee abuse and torture at the

Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad, Iraq; South Carolina governor Mark Sanford’s per-

sonal transgressions; the “CIA leak” that brought about Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s ob-

struction of justice and perjury convictions; claims that former Illinois governor

Rod Blagojevich peddled Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat after Obama was elected

president, and list goes on.

One particular “official act of misconduct” deals with a notorious clinical study

known as the Tuskegee Experiment. In this 40-year-long experiment, medical

treatment was deliberately withheld from 399 poor, African American sharecrop-

pers from Alabama who had tested positive for syphilis, a highly contagious bacte-

rial STD. Deceived by doctors from 1932 to 1972, the patients were never told that

they suffered from syphilis. Officials from the U.S. Public Health Service went “to

extreme lengths to insure that they received no therapy from any source,” making

this “the longest non-therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history,”

Tuskegee Study Images from the Records of the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention.

Source: Inside the National Archives Southeast Region. “6. The Tuskegee Study (1930s-1972)”

http://www.archives.gov/southeast/exhibit/6.php.

354 CHAPTER 11

according to an article in the New York Times (Heller 1972). In 1997 President Bill

Clinton offered a formal apology to the eight living survivors for what its govern-

ment had done.

The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply,

profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to in-

tegrity and equality for all our citizens. To our African American citizens,

I am sorry that your federal government orchestrated a study so clearly

racist. That can never be allowed to happen again. It is against everything

our country stands for and what we must stand against is what it was. The

people who ran the study at Tuskegee diminished the stature of man by

abandoning the most basic ethical precepts. (Clinton 1997)

Bureaucracy and Ethics The mere mention of “bureaucracy” invokes images ranging from gross ineptitude

and the inability to complete simple tasks to elitist public officials abusing their

power. Even though bureaucracy is an essential part of any organization, none

wants to be thought of as bureaucratic (Healy 1996). Conversations about bureau-

cracy often begin and end with comments from the writings of the eminent sociol-

ogist Max Weber. Weber created the bureaucratic model, a model characterized by

formal rules and regulations, specialized roles, a hierarchical structure, and a clear

chain of command. Central to bureaucracy is consistency in terms of actions and be-

haviors. According to Eugene Litwak (1961), within a bureaucracy an individual’s

job position is based on merit (as opposed to nepotism); individual authority and

responsibility is dictated by an individual’s job description;

and there is clear separation between one’s personal life

and one’s work life.

Weber failed to realize that the dynamics of bureaucracy

itself brought about unintended consequences resulting

from personal interests. There are countless examples of

bureaucracies acting without regard for human costs. Ac-

cording to J. Krohe, “The fit between business bureaucra-

cies and conscience is particularly poor. Bureaucracies

insulate individuals from the ultimate victims of miscon-

duct, be they babies drinking doctored apple juice, drivers

in unsafe cars, or little old ladies who lose their savings;

people are thus also insulated from the empathetic impulse that so often sparks

conscience” (1997, p. 17). Ferrell and Skinner (1988) argue that bureaucracy’s cen-

tralized and hierarchical power base actually helps create opportunities for uneth-

ical behavior. That is, with power held in the hands of so few, the discretion of

rank-and-file and middle-level bureaucrats is severely limited. The result is that

these bureaucrats tend to follow authority blindly, regardless of any ethical dilem-

“Nothing is so

contagious as

example; and we

never do any

great good or evil

which does not

produce its like.”

FRANCOIS DE LA

ROCHEFOUCAULD

Writer

355Ethics and Public Administration

“No Surrender” With the expansion of the federal government

during the Civil War, and the postwar strug-

gle between Democratic President Andrew

Johnson and Congressional Republicans over

control of Reconstruction, the civil service re-

form movement began in earnest in the late

1860s. Reformers, such as cartoonist Thomas

Nast, considered the patronage system of

government appointments based on partisan

loyalty to be corrupt and inefficient. They

wanted to replace it with a system of govern-

ment service based on merit appointments

(through standardized examinations), pro-

motion, and tenure. In 1867, the U.S. House

of Representatives narrowly voted to table a

civil service reform bill, and with the election

of Republican Ulysses S. Grant as president

in 1868, some Republican supporters of the

reform during the Johnson years suddenly decided that the patronage system worked

quite well. In 1871, however, President Grant created the nation’s first Civil Service Com-

mission, naming as its chairman George William Curtis, the editor of Harper’s Weekly

and president of the National Civil Service Reform Association.

The cartoon presents a scene following Grant’s reelection in November 1872. In the glow

of Republican victory, Senator Simon Cameron and Governor John Hartranft, both of

Pennsylvania, pressured the president to suspend the civil service rules for the Philadel-

phia post office, an important source of patronage for the Republican Party in that state.

Grant steadfastly refused, reaffirming his commitment to civil service reform. Here,

Cameron (left) and Hartranft (right) are dressed as Italian bandits, while their sup-

porters in the background carry aloft a banner inscribed with the battle cry of the pa-

tronage (“spoils”) system: “To the Victors, Belong the Spoils.” Grant expresses his

determination to implement the new civil service regulations, which are held by Co-

lumbia, and Uncle Sam appears (behind the door) as a policeman ready to enforce the

law. The cartoon’s title—“No Surrender”—alludes to Grant’s commitment as Union com-

mander during the Civil War to full Union victory and the “Unconditional Surrender”

(his nickname) of the Confederacy.

Source: Thomas Nast, Harper’s Weekly, December 7, 1872. http://www.harpweek.com.

U.S.G. (Ulysses Grant): “I am deter-

mined to enforce those regulations.”

356 CHAPTER 11

mas. This tendency clearly underscores the importance of establishing and adher-

ing to administrative ethical standards.

The Need for Administrative Ethics Decisions based on convenience and efficiency—”means to ends”—or on the basis

of economics may be at the heart of unethical behavior.

One of the most commonly agreed-upon notions in the field of public ad-

ministration is that administrators have numerous roles, or value sets,

which are sources for the decisions they make. For example, an adminis-

trator may concentrate quite appropriately on legal issues at one point, or-

ganizational issues at another, and personal interests at still another.

Although there is widespread agreement that these roles and their con-

comitant value sets exist, that agreement quickly dissipates when one tries

to identify and name which roles or value sets are crucial for public ad-

ministrators. (Van Wart 1996, p. 526)

An inherent challenge for public employees is balancing diverse and competing de-

mands. P.B. Strait (1998, p. 12) contends that public employees “must be able to

work within the framework of three goals: loyalty to the organization, responsive-

ness to the needs of the public, and consideration for the employees’ own objec-

tives and desires. These goals provide an environment that is rich in ethical

dilemmas.” The organizational structure in which public

employees currently operate engenders ethical dilemmas.

Public employees are often forced to choose between

obeying policy and serving the needs of clients. For ex-

ample, public health clinics exist to serve those who can-

not otherwise afford care. Patients pay according to

their income. The working poor are caught in between:

not qualifying for assistance and not able to afford to

purchase health care. This same irony also exists in

higher education for students who come from working

families who cannot afford the steep tuition prices and yet do not qualify for

tuition aid. Law enforcement officers face a similar dilemma when they are

required to spend half of their shifts doing paperwork at the expense of pro-

viding a rapid response to citizens. Employees who work for agencies with

such incongruent policies are often placed in the uncomfortable position of

trying to uphold policy to the detriment of the very people the agencies are

attempting to serve. In choosing to serve the needs of their clients, employ-

ees violate organizational policies and put themselves at risk. Policies of this

nature need to be reviewed to eliminate this unnecessary ethical dilemma.

Until then, choosing the client’s interests over the interests of oneself or the

organization may be the most ethical action of all. (Strait 1998, p. 18)

“Glass, china,

and reputation

are easily cracked,

and never well

mended.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

American Statesman;

Ambassador; Patriot

357Ethics and Public Administration

There are several examples where the actions (or inactions) of bureaucrats, who by

virtue of their position are trusted with upholding the public interest, have dis-

honored this responsibility. A potential cure for corruption may lie in organiza-

tional codes of ethics.

“Every Public Question with an Eye

Only to the Public Good” “Well, the wickedness of all of it is, not that these men were bribed or corruptly in-

fluenced, but that they betrayed the trust of the people, deceived their constituents,

and by their evasions and falsehoods confessed the transaction to be disgraceful.”

—New York Tribune, February 19, 1873.

Justice (to the Saints of the Press):

“Let him that has not betrayed the trust of the People, and is without stain, cast the

first stone.”

This Harper’s Weekly cartoon by Thomas Nast indicts the congressmen involved in the

Credit Mobilier scandal as well as an irresponsible press corps for violating the public

trust. Credit Mobilier was the holding and construction company of the federally sub-

sidized Union Pacific Railroad. Its managers were accused of siphoning off huge

amounts of public money for personal gain, and of attempting to cover up their mis-

deeds by bribing congressmen with discounted stock and bonds.

Source: Thomas Nast, Harper’s Weekly, March 15, 1873. http://www.harpweek.com.

358 CHAPTER 11

Misuse of Position Employee Crossword Puzzle

Answer key at the end of chapter.

Source: U.S. Office of Government Ethics, “Crossword Puzzles,” 2007. www.oge.gov/training/cross-

word_puzzles.aspx.

EXERCISE 11.1

2. You can’t use

___ information to

further your own

private interest or

that of another.

5. Generally, you

can’t use your gov-

ernment title or

position to ___ any

product, enter-

prise, or service.

7. Generally, you

can’t use your

position, title, or

___ associated

with your public

office to imply that

your agency sanc-

tions your outside

activities.

9. You can’t use

government prop-

erty, including the

services of ___,

for unauthorized

purposes.

11. Unless author-

ized, playing

games on your of-

fice computer is a

misuse of official

___ and govern-

ment property.

12. Widely used

and misused

piece of govern-

ment equipment.

1. You are to pro-

tect and ___ gov-

ernment property.

3. Your ___ can’t

ask you to shop

for his wife’s birth-

day present during

duty hours.

4. Recommending

your neighbor for

a federal job on

agency ___ is ok

if you have per-

sonal knowledge

of his abilities or

character.

6. You can’t use

your public office

for private ___.

8. Don’t use your

public office to

___ yourself or

others.

10. You learn on

the job that Com-

pany X found the

cure for a major

disease. You may

not buy ___ in

Company X before

your agency

announces the

company found

the cure.

Across Down

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

11

12

359Ethics and Public Administration

Countless oaths, pledges, and codes champion the tenets of ethical conduct. They

typically underscore the importance of duty, service, honor, and fairness. One such

noteworthy call for ethical behavior is embodied in Greek tradition—that being the

Athenian Oath:

We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or

cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both

alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City’s laws, and will do

our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are

prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive increasingly to

quicken the public’s sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will

transmit this City, not only not less, but greater and more beautiful than

it was transmitted to us.

Declarations of loyalty and commitment to ethical conduct are common through-

out several occupational fields and disciplines. Almost routinely, elected and pub-

lic officials are sworn into service by taking an oath. Physicians must take an oath

to “do no harm,” while attorneys must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and

the constitution of the state in which they are admitted to the bar. Like an oath of

office, organizational codes of ethics affirm the importance of ethical standards of

conduct. The American Society for Public Administration’s

(ASPA) Code of Ethics includes five principles that public

administration should champion.

Unethical behavior will occur despite clearly defined codes

of ethics. A multitude of factors influence unethical deci-

sion making and behaviors. In some cases, employment

conditions, such as dissatisfaction with wages and benefits,

may influence individuals to take what they feel is owed to

them. Other factors may concern organizational culture,

whereby a culture of “getting the job done at any cost” encourages disregard for

ethical considerations in the interest of achieving outcomes. Nevertheless, codes

of conduct are a necessary first step toward ensuring ethical conduct.

Condoning Corruption Citizens frustrated with public bureaucracies are inclined, at times, to take out these

frustrations by using subtle, but nevertheless illicit, strategies. As customers of gov-

ernment, citizens often savor mistakes in their favor, such as a failure to bill for

goods or to stop checks to deceased relatives. Some citizens try to punish public

bureaucracies—which they feel punish them by misrepresenting their eligibility for

assistance when they cannot find a decent job, their personal tax liability when

rates go up, or their own negligence in a product’s failure. Even those bureaucrats

who anger clients can become so turned off that they rip-off their own organiza-

tions. As so-called “time bandits,” they arrive late to work, leave early, take long

“Relativity applies

to physics,

not ethics.”

ALBERT EINSTEIN

Physicist;

Nobel Prize Winner

(1879–1955)

360 CHAPTER 11

Employee Conduct: Ethical or Unethical? Scenario: Catherine is an official at the Small Business Administration. From time to

time, she looks in on an elderly neighbor to see if she needs anything. On a recent visit,

Catherine learned that her neighbor was upset over the Internal Revenue Service’s as-

sessment of a penalty against her because of a claimed overdue payment. The neigh-

bor is apprehensive about calling the IRS to explain the error, so Catherine would like to

call for her. She does not intend to take any compensation.

Is the representational service Catherine proposes to provide permissible?

Answer: No.

Explanation: Two overlapping federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205, prohibit an

employee from making representations—whether for compensation or not—before any

department, agency, or court if the matter is one in which the United States has a sub-

stantial interest. The statutes also prohibit an employee from—

• Taking compensation for such representational services provided by

another; and

• Receiving consideration for assisting in the prosecution of a claim against

the United States.

There are a number of exceptions to sections 203 and 205. An important one allows

an employee, under certain circumstances, to represent himself, his parents, his

spouse, his children, and certain others for whom the employee serves in a specific fi-

duciary capacity such as a guardian.

Scenario: Paula works in the public information office of the Internal Revenue Service.

A private trade association offers to pay her to teach a short course on a new taxpayer

assistance program being implemented by the IRS.

May Paula accept the offer?

Answer: No.

Explanation: An employee may not receive compensation—including travel expenses

for transportation and lodging—from any source other than the government for teach-

ing, speaking, or writing that relates to the employee’s official duties. For most employ-

ees, teaching, speaking, or writing is considered “related to official duties” if—

• The activity is part of the employee’s official duties;

• The invitation to teach, speak, or write is extended primarily because of

the employee’s official position;

• The invitation or the offer of compensation is extended by a person

whose interests may be affected substantially by the employee’s

performance of his official duties;

• The activity draws substantially on nonpublic information; or

• The subject of the activity deals in significant part with agency programs,

operations, or policies or with the employee’s current or recent assignments.

Scenario: Sylvia, an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, offers to

help a friend with a consumer complaint by calling the manufacturer of a household

appliance. In the course of the conversation with the manufacturer, Sylvia states that

she works for the SEC and is responsible for reviewing the manufacturer’s SEC filings.

EXERCISE 11.2

361Ethics and Public Administration

Has Sylvia misused her public office?

Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Employees may not use their public offices for private gain, either their

own gain or that of others. Sylvia used her office to induce a benefit for private pur-

poses.

Scenario: Joe is delighted with his new boss, Dan. In a few short months, Dan has

brought about creative changes in the division’s work product while, at the same time,

improving efficiency and boosting office morale. The two workers have also developed

a friendship based on mutual respect and shared outside interests. Because of a con-

flicting family commitment, Joe and his daughter will be unable to use their season

tickets for the next Orioles home game, so Joe thinks he’d like to give them to Dan.

May he do so?

Answer: No.

Explanation: And it would be impermissible for Dan to accept the tickets if offered.

An employee may not—

• Give or solicit for a gift to an official superior; or

• Accept a gift from a lower-paid employee, unless the two employees are

personal friends who are not in a superior-subordinate relationship.

In this context, the words “superior” and “subordinate” refer to people in the em-

ployee’s chain of command.

Scenario: Jenny is employed as a researcher by the Veterans Administration. Her

cousin and close friend, Zach, works for a pharmaceutical company that does business

with the VA. Jenny’s 40th birthday is approaching, and Zach and his wife have invited

Jenny and her husband out to dinner to celebrate the occasion.

May Jenny accept?

Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Gifts are permitted where the circumstances make it clear that the gift is

motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the

employee. It would be improper, however, for Jenny to accept the dinner if Zach

charged the meal to his employer because then it would no longer be a gift from Zach.

Exceptions to the rule against acceptance of gifts allow employees to accept—

• Unsolicited gifts with a value of $20 or less;

• Gifts clearly given because of a family relationship or personal friendship;

• Free attendance at an event on the day an employee is speaking or

presenting information on behalf of the agency;

• Free attendance at certain widely attended gatherings;

• Certain discounts and similar opportunities and benefits;

• Certain awards and honorary degrees; and

• Certain gifts based on outside business or employment relationships.

Source: U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Do It Right: An Ethics Handbook for Executive Branch Employees.

Washington, DC: OGE, January 2005.

http://www.usoge.gov/training/training_materials/booklets/bkdoitright_95.pdf.

EXERCISE 11.2

362 CHAPTER 11

lunch breaks, and manipulate leave records. When they are at work, it is often with

a smirk: photocopying personal papers, pilfering office supplies, making personal

or long-distance calls, shopping on the Internet, stealing computer supplies, using

office postage, or perhaps even abusing expense accounts. A particularly blatant

form of such thievery is running a small personal business from a bureaucracy’s big

base: law or accounting, repairs or typing, sales or printing. As Roberts (2007) in-

dicates, condoning corruption is the result of lowering ethical expectations. As a

consequence of lowered ethical expectations, many ethical misdeeds are viewed as

acceptable, as long as they are not egregious or newsworthy.

Combating Corruption Petty theft is a by-product of petty bureaucrats. Almost everyone is “guilty” of tak-

ing home a few folders or making a few personal calls. Public bureaucracies would

be depopulated if that were cause for dismissal. Some might argue that corruption

worth countering is corruption worth counting. By regularly take petty cash and of-

fice stamps, for instance, petty thieves provide a foundation for building criminal

momentum—in other words, they create a slippery slope.

Falsifying expense vouchers can amount to thousands.

Rocketing payments to fictitious vendors or clients is an

example of white-collar crime. Clerks are often in the un-

comfortable position of observing such corruption but have

no apparent means to stop it.

Although petty corruption is too widely tolerated, it can be

toned down if logged in. Logs are like God, country, and

apple pie—few people object to them openly. For those in-

dividuals in charge of a public organization, logging (or list-

ing) is a psychological deterrent for long-distance calls or

personal Internet surfing, for making non-work-related

copies and taking supplies—even if the logs are never

checked against the meters, the bills, or the inventories.

While organizations are reluctant to act on seemingly mod-

est (but ultimately expensive) abuses of expense accounts, conveying that “we have

heard” the business office is cracking down on undocumented expenses, or that the

auditors are stepping up their scrutiny of certain vouchers, may indeed deter temp-

tation. Of course, those white lies must be carefully timed to precede, rather than

coincide with, submission of forms an individual may be asked to type, photocopy,

or initial.

Countering large-scale corruption is difficult, to say the least. If it continues, rather

than quietly ignoring it, public servants can try quietly deploring it. Public servants

can help to establish an anticorruption culture by expressing disgust with a rip-off

that one has heard about in another department or requesting an explanation of

questionable financial decisions. As diplomats daily demonstrate, tactfully pointing

“It is naïve to

believe that ethic

rules will prevent

an administration

from using its

bureaucratic

power to favor

special interests

that support its

public policy and

political agendas.”

ROBERT ROBERTS

Professor; Author

363Ethics and Public Administration

out an uncorrected wrong or broken rule gives a superior or colleague a chance to

correct it without consequence—to stop taking bribes, passing faulty parts, per-

mitting physically unsafe procedures, and so on. Since they have signaled that

someone is now noticing the situation—and might well bring it to the attention of

higher-ups—there is a good chance that the improprieties will end without the need

for further action.

Formal Rules and Bureaucratic Discretion An understanding among public employees is that the so-called “inner face” (or the

informal rules) supports the “outer face” (which represents the bureaucratic rules,

or the “rulebook”). Productive executives understand that

organizations operating completely by the “rulebook” will

have difficulty serving the public interest precisely because

rules are not always realistic. The inner face helps deter-

mine when it is acceptable to take shortcuts in the inter-

ests of both the organization and client. At times, however,

a bureaucrat with a pet project or pet position inflexibly

places paper over products, procedures over profits, or pet-

tiness over people. Some bureaucrats agree informally to

be formal. Initiative becomes a dirty word. All orders are

followed explicitly, without any shortcuts. All procedures

are carried out meticulously, no matter how ridiculously.

Without the informal rules to “grease the wheels,” the or-

ganizational gears lock. Traffic backs up, orders back up, and lines back up. The

output of public organizations drops and clients naturally become irate, but the un-

trustworthy bureaucrat capitulates and goes along.

Bureaucrats determined to serve the public good will disregard orders that are

likely to result in their customers and citizens being taken down the paths of dan-

ger. Many unethical orders—to pass diseased food, to approve faulty products, or

to certify dangerous drugs—are verbal commands without a prosecutable paper

trail. Therefore, unethical bureaucrats typically will not be able to make an issue of

ethical public servants who choose to blatantly disregard such orders. However, if

unethical bureaucrats persist in their demands, it may be possible to stop them by

insisting that they put their orders in writing. If not, then probably the best defense

is reference to the agency-specific “rulebook,” as well as the broader rules covered

by codes of ethics, the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, government regula-

tions, and industry standards.

Using good judgment and discretion is probably the most effective means for

changing organizational behavior. By working through established channels, an in-

dividual can make good use of a largely underutilized asset—discretion. Discretion

“To educate a

person in mind

and not in morals

is to educate

a menace to

society.”

THEODORE

ROOSEVELT

26th President of the

United States

(1858–1919)

364 CHAPTER 11

Fourteen Principles of Ethical Conduct

for Federal Employees (1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Con-

stitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

(2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious

performance of duty.

(3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic Govern-

ment information or allow the improper use of such information to further any pri-

vate interest.

(4) An employee shall not, except as permitted by the Standards of Ethical Conduct,

solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity

seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated

by the employee’s agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the

performance or nonperformance of the employee’s duties.

(5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.

(6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of

any kind purporting to bind the Government.

(7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.

(8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private

organization or individual.

(9) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for

other than authorized activities.

(10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seek-

ing or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and

responsibilities.

(11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate au-

thorities.

(12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all

financial obligations, especially those—such as Federal, State, or local taxes—that are

imposed by law.

(13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportu-

365Ethics and Public Administration

is a powerful but silent tool for righting organizational wrongs. Because orders from

generals high above must be carried out by troops far below, almost every bureau-

crat has a little leeway in making some decisions. No rulebook can anticipate every

possible scenario, so bureaucrats must develop substantial decision-making skills.

Often their most effective tactics is not to act: They can pretend they never received

a change in orders and wait to see if anyone notices their inaction, or they can sim-

ply delay, holding up a policy change on technical grounds until the current poli-

cymaker is changed. In one such instance of good judgment dating back to the

Watergate era, the U.S. Department of Labor secretary George Shultz ordered the

Internal Revenue Service to “do nothing” in response to Nixon counsel John Dean’s

illegitimate order to investigate the president’s “enemies list.”

Those who feel that their colleagues, clients, or checkbooks are being exploited have

a variety of remedial tactics at their disposal. The dated receipt for a warranty a

day or two past expiration can accidentally be misread to the client’s benefit—and

to the bureaucrat’s gratification in terms of a warm “thank you.” However, accept-

ing a gratuity or gift in return moves the action from compassionate to corrupt. A

working welfare mother who is no longer permitted funds for transportation to a

job under new legislation might instead be granted a greater allowance in another

category in order to keep her employed instead of seeing her incentive to work de-

stroyed. A job applicant might be given hints about completing an application

rather than having it rejected for insufficient information. A maintenance supervi-

sor might quietly fix a customer’s small problem (no charge, no paper trail), al-

though the request was rejected in short order by the short-tempered general

manager. In every such case, flexible common sense triumphs over bureaucratic

rigidity.

If the top brass have not listened privately to reason, chances are they will have to

nity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or

handicap.

(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they

are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in the Standards of Ethical

Conduct. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or

these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a rea-

sonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

Source: U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Do It Right: An Ethics Handbook for Executive Branch

Employees. Washington, DC, January 2005.

www.usoge.gov/training/training_materials/booklets/bkdoitright_95.pdf.

366 CHAPTER 11

hear public objections to their organization’s unreasonable actions. Policies are

rarely written in full enough detail to fully paralyze policy implementers. A popu-

lar saying among bureaucrats in the nation’s capital is that the “D.C.” after “Wash-

ington” stands for “Discretion Central.” When Washington (under the

administration of Republican president Ronald Reagan) ordered a cut in the size of

school lunches, an “objective” bureaucratic decision to count ketchup as a vegetable

lit a destructive fire under the entire school lunch cutback effort. Likewise, when

Washington ordered schools not to feed students who had failed to file new re-eli-

gibility forms, a decision by one school administrator to feed leftovers to hungry

students attracted Page One attention, embarrassing the order-givers into becom-

ing order-rescinders.

Channeling Complaints to Conscience:

Sore Throat, Deep Throat, Cutthroat It is a healthy sign that more organizations have created self-correcting mecha-

nisms for possible mistakes and abuses. Such mechanisms do not include sugges-

tion boxes, which we suspect are linked to wastebaskets. Rather, they are home

remedies for bureaucratic sore throats, remedies that should always be tried before

going public. They are the embodiment of the organizational conscience through

which we can “blow the whistle,” bringing to the surface urgent questions that reg-

ular channels have ignored: “Why were bids for project A solicited only from bid-

ders B and C?” “Is official X being transferred in retaliation

for speaking out?” “Does the organization secretly dis-

criminate against females or older males?” “Are minorities

blacklisted on promotion lists?” Even when promised

anonymity or protection, public servants who speak up

against such wrongs and abuses are likely to be identified

and may even earn the label of “troublemaker” or “pest” as

stories travel through the grapevine.

If home remedies do not work, public servants can try

“whistling” from home or a pay phone—playing the anony-

mous role of “Deep Throat” for surrogates ranging from re-

porters to legislators to crusaders. As the administration of

President Richard Nixon learned in the Watergate scandal, a very effective way of

blowing the whistle is to blow it anonymously. For decades, many observers spec-

ulated as to the identity of the Deep Throat source that blew the Republican break-

in of Democratic headquarters wide open and supplied so much damaging evidence

against Nixon. In May 2005, the former deputy director of the Federal Bureau of In-

vestigation William Mark Felt revealed himself as the real “Deep Throat.”

If an ethically conscience bureaucrat’s story is not as spectacular as presidential

guilt or public danger, the press may not be interested in it. Most cases of ques-

“If ethics are poor

at the top, that

behavior is copied

down through the

organization.”

ROBERT NOYCE

Co-inventor, Microchip;

Co-founder,

Intel Corporation

(1927–1990)

367Ethics and Public Administration

tionable ethics in the field of public administration are far more mundane, involv-

ing, for instance, evidence that indicts a controller for charging his beach house to

the entertainment fund, or questions an illegal campaign contribution, or produces

examples of blatant nepotism.

Whistleblowing

Although bureaucratic lore commonly holds that uncovering unlawful waste, fraud,

or abuse will result in chilling isolation, impossible job transfers, or other cruel and

unusual forms of recrimination, there are still ways to fight back. There are means

with which public servants can force a change in an orga-

nization’s course without being forced out of a job. Not all

government workers with information that threatens the

status quo are in danger of losing their jobs; occasionally,

they may even be rewarded for speaking up. But too often

they may be warned in subtle ways that such behavior is

not a “team” strategy, not an “acceptable” avenue to prob-

lem solving. Superiors and even coworkers may go so far

as to imply that whistleblowers are “letting their friends

down,” that they are “disloyal,” that they are “squealing.”

Such suggestions are powerful squelchers. Government

workers who are truth-pushers may be warned by being

cold-shouldered, overloaded, or having their work sabo-

taged. Unfortunately, many accede to the pressure and

quickly adopt the self-serving norm: They “go along to get

along.” Tangible cooperation, friendship, and promotions

loom larger than what they rationalize as far more distant

organizational or public interests. However, more and more public servants are

stepping out of the bureaucratic shadows and acting in the interest of ethics. Daniel

Ellsberg, who released the top secret “Pentagon Papers” to the New York Times

during the Vietnam War may be the most well-known bureaucrat to have put his

ethics over his self interest, inspiring untold numbers of public servants to do so

over the intervening decades.

Sometimes, whistleblowers recruit allies in the form of the press, politicians, pro-

fessional organizations, private lawyers, or public prosecutors. After the whistle is

blown, the bureaucracy oftentimes buries the charger and charges. It politely pre-

tends to listen, to follow-up, consider, and take corrective action. But complaints,

at times, are buried in bureaucratic backwaters in the expectation that they will be

forgotten. If they resist fading away, most bureaucracies are large enough to trans-

fer them away. Ironically, those bureaucrats who are most adept at such discreet

burials are sometimes rewarded by discreet promotions. In contrast, whistleblow-

ers are disdainfully rewarded by becoming the butt of bureaucratic humor; by

being assigned to “make work” or “no work” jobs; by being shunned, transferred or

“In practice,

whistleblowing can

be a solution to

some of our

problems.

We should be

permitted to tell

the truth without

fearing that it

is something

dangerous.”

BILL BUSH

NASA Aerospace

Engineer; Whistleblower

368 CHAPTER 11

ignored; by being frozen out of anything sensitive. The organization reasons that we

will become discouraged, that we will lose the interest of fickle allies, that we will

be reduced to insignificant blemishes on the bureaucratic body.

Although the heat of whistleblowing can be intense, the rewards of going public in-

clude the highs of:

1. Enhancing our self-respect;

2. Gaining and maintaining the esteem of our family and friends;

3. The chance of vindication by forcing responsible actions.

Resignation as a Test and Protest

In the game of organizational power, an effective hand for forcing change may be

to threaten a parting of the ways. Drawing up a letter of resignation may compel

higher-ups to pay attention. The bureaucracy’s desire to deal with complaints fre-

quently hinges on the importance of the complainant to the overall organization.

For example, one individual with specialized knowledge of an organization’s books,

files, or procedures possesses tremendous leverage. In contrast, an individual who

is one of ten specialists serving under a grossly unethical and incompetent admin-

istrator has significantly less leverage. If the organization calls a public servant’s

bluff and accepts his or her resignation, often an effective way to protest is to sound

off while taking off. If their subordinates care about the issue, they may join in res-

ignation. (But, applying pressure to do so is, of course, unethical.)

Unfortunately and traditionally, though, most bureaucrats who resign because they

are at odds with the organization never say so publicly. That is, most resignations

are “discreet.” If, however, a bureaucrat views his or her resignation as a matter of

conscience, then that individual can draft a statement underscoring the basis for his

or her disillusion, distrust, or dismay, distributing it widely with the introduction

“I am resigning effective immediately because. . . .” Bureaucrats who have faith in

their eventual resurrection can “destroy and search,” resigning and then looking

elsewhere for employment, perhaps even in another field. If they consider their

Your Values and Ethics—A BBC Tool (Simulation) Students will take this test and identify where they fall on the values/ethics contin-

uum. After completing this inventory, students will summarize their results and ex-

plain whether or not they believe this tool should be used in the workplace and, if

so, how.

www.thinkingethics.typepad.com/thinkingethics/games

EXERCISE 11.3

369Ethics and Public Administration

present environment unhealthy, chances are that forcing a job search will land them

a better position—one more in keeping with their commitment to public service.

Having something to say is not necessarily sufficient reason to say it—until one has

the right platform, the right position, and the right placement. A public servant

may attract more attention for change as the new commissioner of Agency X than

the ex-commissioner of Agency Y. In other words, patience may prove useful for

those looking to evoke positive changes ethically. The press regularly reports cri-

tiques and exposés by bureaucrats who left politely and quietly, but who had sec-

ond thoughts about the knowledge they harbored. Those without access to the press

could write letters to the editor, inspectors general, ombudsmen, and regulators.

Admittedly, some post-resignation complaints may be cases of sour grapes, some

may be self-serving, but many are legitimate attempts to right what is still wrong.

Resigned, Retired, or Fired

Most bureaucrats are turned out to pasture when they are too “old,” but some of them

are forced to depart because they are too bold. They understand the fatal flaws in de-

cisions everyone else has rubber-stamped, and they say so.

That verbal action, no matter how politely put, is often suf-

ficient reason to cut them from the team. They become ex-

pendable, and neat methods of disposal are used to force

their “voluntary” resignation or retirement. The implicit deal

is that their professional reputation and pension will be pro-

tected if their silence and acquiescence protect the team.

There are many examples of whistleblowing success stories,

though some are bittersweet. For instance, it took Ernie

Fitzgerald, a Nixon-era government budget analyst who blew the whistle on Penta-

gon cost overruns, a decade of grief, but with the help of an organized committee,

members of Congress, the press, and the courts he regained his position plus pro-

motion, his reputation, and even civil damages from the government. Hugh Kauf-

man, who was harassed and rated unfavorably by the Environmental Protection

Agency after blowing the whistle on mismanagement of toxic waste programs, suc-

cessfully sued to right his record and land a suitable reassignment. Cyril Lang suc-

cessfully reversed his suspension for teaching the unauthorized classics of Machiavelli

and Aristotle from Charles W. Woodward High School, in Rockville, MD (TIME mag-

azine, 1980). Another strategy for fighting back is to do something on the way out. If

organizational life is limited, one may still be able to breathe new life into the organ-

ization or issue by doing the unexpected. Shortly before ending his career in govern-

ment as special counsel to the Department of Energy, Paul Bloom (1939–2009)

arranged to donate $4 million to pay the heating bills of low-income families out of

$2 billion he and his colleagues had recovered from oil company overcharges.

“In a civilized life,

law floats in a sea

of ethics.”

EARL WARREN

Chief Justice of the

U.S. Supreme Court

(1891–1974)

370 CHAPTER 11

Bloomberg, M.R. 2001. Bloomberg by Bloomberg. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bottorff, Dean L. 1997. “How Ethics Can Improve Business Success.” Quality

Progress 30, no. 2 (February): 57–60.

Clinton, William. 1997. “Apology for Study Done in Tuskegee.” The White House

Office of the Press Secretary, May 16.

Ferrell, O.C., and S.J. Skinner. 1988. “Ethical Behavior and Bureaucratic Struc-

ture in Marketing Research Organizations.” Journal of Marketing Research

25: 103–9.

Frederickson, H. George, and Jeremy David Walling. 1999. “Editors’ Introduc-

tion: Ethics in Contemporary Human Resources Management.” Public Person-

nel Management 28: 501.

French, W. and J. Granrose. 1995. Practical Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Healy, M. 1996. “Max Weber’s Comeback, Wearing Topical Hats.” People Man-

agement, January.

Heller, Jean. 1972. “Syphilis Victims in U.S. Study Went Untreated for 40 Years.”

New York Times. July 26, p. 1.

Krohe, J. 1997. “Ethics Are Nice, But Business Is Business.” Across the Board,

April, 16–17.

Litwak, Eugene, 1961. “Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict.” American

Journal of Sociology 67: 177–84.

Machiavelli, N. 1532. The Prince. Trans. D. Donno, New York: Bantam Dell Clas-

sics, 1984.

National League of Cities Official Website. The Athenian Oath.

http://www.nlc.org/about_cities/cities_101/146.aspx.

Administrative ethics

Athenian oath

Deontological theories

Ethics

Machiavellianism

Teleological theories

Tuskegee Experiment

Whistleblowing

KEY TERMS

REFERENCES

371Ethics and Public Administration

Roberts, R.N. 2007. “History of the Legalization of Executive Branch Ethics Reg-

ulation: Implications for the Management of Public Integrity.” Public Integrity

9, 4 (Fall): 313–32.

Strait, Patricia Bellin. 1998. “Unethical Actions of Public Servants: A Voyeur’s

View.” Public Management 80: 12–18.

Thompson, Dennis F. 1985. “The Possibility of Administrative Ethics.” Public Ad-

ministrative Review 45, no. 5: 555–61.

———. 1987. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-

versity Press.

TIME magazine. 1980. Education: How to Protect Tender Minds.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922234–2,00.html, ac-

cessed October 8, 2010.

Van Wart, M. 1996. “The Sources of Ethical Decision Making for Individuals in

the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review 56: 525–33.

———. 1998. Changing Public Sector Values. Hamden, CT: Garland Publishing.

Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated

by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. London: Collier Macmillan Publish-

ers.

Zinkhan, G.M., D.E. Delorme, C.O. Peters, and R.T. Watson. 2007. “Information

Sources and Government Research: Ethical Conflicts and Solutions.” Public

Integrity 9, no. 4: 363–76.

Adams, G.B., and D.L. Balfour. 2004. Unmasking Administrative Evil. Armonk,

NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bowman, J.S., and C. Connolly Knox. 2008. “Ethics in Government: No Matter

How Long and Dark the Night.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 4

(June): 627–39.

Cooper, T. 1998. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the

Administrative Role. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denhardt, K.G. 1988. The Ethics of Public Service: Resolving Moral Dilemmas

in Public Organizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Frederickson, G., and R.K. Ghere. 2005. Ethics in Public Management. Armonk,

NY: M.E. Sharpe.

SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS

372 CHAPTER 11

Gawthrop, L.C. 1993. “The Ethical Foundations of American Public Administra-

tion.” International Journal of Public Administration 16, no. 2: 139–63.

Lewis, C.W., and S.C. Gilman. 2005. The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A

Problem-Solving Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Madsen, P., and J.M. Shafritz, eds. 1992. Essentials of Government Ethics. New

York: New American Library.

Roberts, R.N. 2001. Ethics in U.S. Government: An Encyclopedia of Investiga-

tions, Scandals, Reforms, and Legislation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Rohr, J. 1989. Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values. 2d ed. New

York: Marcel Dekker.

Centre for Applied Ethics—applied ethics resources on the web, including public

sector and government ethics, environmental ethics, and ethical decision mak-

ing: http://www.ethicsweb.ca/resources/

Citizens’ Circle for Accountability—a Canadian website that provides an interna-

tional forum on strategies to help citizens hold their government officials fully

accountable for their actions: http://accountabilitycircle.org/index.html

Government Accountability Project—a nonprofit public interest group that pro-

motes government and corporate accountability and advocates greater protec-

tion of whistleblowers: http://www.whistleblower.org

National Institutes of Health Ethics Program—focuses on standards of ethical

conduct for federal employees: http://ethics.od.nih.gov/default.htm

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Fighting

Corruption webpage:

http://www.oecd.org/about/0,3347,en_2649_34135_1_1_1_1_37447,00.html

Transparency International—the global coalition against corruption:

http://www.transparency.org/

U.S. Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO)—Ethics Re-

source Library that also contains Ethics Resources on the Web, an electronic li-

brary of federal and nonfederal websites devoted to ethics; statutes,

regulations, and executive orders; and a plethora of other materials on the

topic: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/

U.S. Department of the Interior Ethics Office: http://www.doi.gov/ethics/

U.S. Department of the Navy—The Ethics Compass: http://www.ethics.navy.mil

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES

373Ethics and Public Administration

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct:

http://www.house.gov/ethics

U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE): http://www.usoge.gov/

U.S. Office of Government Ethics—Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees

of the Executive Branch: http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_docs/publications/ref-

erence_publications/rfsoc_02.pdf

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics: http://ethics.senate.gov

374 CHAPTER 11

Exercise 11.1 Across 2. You can’t use __________ information to further your own private interest or that

of another.

You cannot use nonpublic information to further your own private interest or that of

another. For example, if you learn on the job that a company will be awarded a gov-

ernment contract, you may not take any action to purchase stock in the company or

its suppliers and you may not advise friends or relatives to do so until after public

announcement of the award. It makes no difference whether you heard about the

contract award as a result of your official duties or at the lunch table.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.703(a) states:

Prohibition. An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using

nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information

to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through ad-

vice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.

5. Generally, you can’t use your government title or position to __________ any

product, enterprise, or service.

Generally, you cannot use your government title or position to endorse any product,

enterprise, or service. That could imply that your agency or the government sanc-

tions or endorses your personal opinion. Of course, if it is part of your agency’s mis-

sion to promote products or document compliance, that would be permitted.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(c) states:

Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Govern-

ment position or title or any authority associated with his public office to

endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enter-

prises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or

standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an

agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the

agency’s mission.

7. Generally, you can’t use your position, title, or __________ associated with your

public office to imply that your agency sanctions your outside activities.

You generally cannot use your government position, title, or authority associated

with your job to imply that your agency or the government sanctions or endorses

your outside activities. Even though your government authority may give you clout

within the community, you are not to use this to your own personal benefit.

An excerpt from 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(b) states:

An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or

EXERCISE ANSWER KEY

375Ethics and Public Administration

title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that

could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government

sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another.

9. You can’t use government property, including the services of __________, for

unauthorized purposes.

You may not use any government property, including the services of contractors,

supplies, photocopying equipment, computers, telephones, mail, records, or govern-

ment vehicles for purposes other than doing your job (unless your agency has rules

permitting some types of incidental use).

5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(b)(1) states:

Government property includes any form of real or personal property in

which the Government has an ownership, leasehold, or other property in-

terest as well as any right or other intangible interest that is purchased with

Government funds, including the services of contractor personnel. The

term includes office supplies, telephone and other telecommunications

equipment and services, the Government mails, automated data process-

ing capabilities, printing and reproduction facilities, Government records,

and Government vehicles.

11. Unless authorized, playing games on your office computer is a misuse of official

__________ and government property.

It is misuse of your official time and government property to play games on your of-

fice computer. If you do not have any work to do, ask your supervisor for something

to work on. You are expected to put in a full day’s work and use government prop-

erty for authorized purposes only. Some agencies may permit you to use your office

computer for nonofficial purposes for a limited amount of time, such as during

lunch or after work. Check with your ethics official to see if your agency has a lim-

ited use policy.

An excerpt from 2635.705(a) states:

Use of an employee’s own time. Unless authorized in accordance with law

or regulations to use such time for other purposes, an employee shall use

official time in an honest effort to perform official duties.

12. Widely used and misused piece of government equipment.

The copier is a widely used and misused piece of government equipment. You must

conserve and protect Government property. You cannot use Government property or

allow its use, other than for authorized purposes. You may not use the photocopying

machine, or any other Government property, including supplies, computers, tele-

phones, mail, records or Government vehicles for purposes other than doing your

job (unless your agency has rules permitting incidental use).

5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(b)(1) states:

EXERCISE ANSWER KEY

376 CHAPTER 11

Government property includes any form of real or personal property in

which the Government has an ownership, leasehold, or other property in-

terest as well as any right or other intangible interest that is purchased with

Government funds, including the services of contractor personnel. The

term includes office supplies, telephone and other telecommunications

equipment and services, the Government mails, automated data process-

ing capabilities, printing and reproduction facilities, Government records,

and Government vehicles.

Down 1. You are to protect and __________ government property.

You are to protect and conserve government property and use it properly. Remem-

ber that all government property is paid for by the public. The public expects you to

use their resources wisely.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.704(a) states:

Standard. An employee has a duty to protect and conserve Government

property and shall not use such property, or allow its use, for other than au-

thorized purposes.

3. Your __________ can’t ask you to shop for his wife’s birthday present during duty

hours.

Your supervisor cannot ask you to shop for his wife’s birthday present during work

hours. Official time is to be used for the performance of official duties. You can only

use your work hours to perform your job. Shopping for the present would be misuse

of your official time.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.705(b) states:

Use of a subordinate’s time. An employee shall not encourage, direct, co-

erce, or request a subordinate to use official time to perform activities

other than those required in the performance of official duties or author-

ized in accordance with law or regulation.

4. Recommending your neighbor for a federal job on agency __________ is ok if you

have personal knowledge of his abilities or character.

You may use agency letterhead to write a letter of recommendation for your neigh-

bor if you have personal knowledge of his abilities or character. You may also use

your official title. This also applies to letters of recommendation for a person you’ve

dealt with in your federal job as long as you have personal knowledge of that per-

son’s ability or character.

An excerpt from 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(b) states:

[An employee] may sign a letter of recommendation using his official title

only in response to a request for an employment recommendation or char-

EXERCISE ANSWER KEY

377Ethics and Public Administration

acter reference based upon personal knowledge of the ability or character

of an individual with whom he has dealt in the course of Federal employ-

ment or whom he is recommending for Federal employment.

6. You can’t use your public office for private __________.

You cannot use your position with the Government for your own personal gain or for

the benefit of others. This includes family, friends, neighbors, and persons or organ-

izations that you are affiliated with outside the government. Your job is not an op-

portunity to obtain special treatment for yourself and others, but to serve the public.

An excerpt from 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 states:

An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the

endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of

friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a non-

governmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the em-

ployee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has

or seeks employment or business relations.

8. Don’t use your public office to __________ yourself or others.

You are not to use your public office to benefit yourself or others. That includes your

friends, relatives, or people you are associated with outside the government. You

are serving the public, not yourself and people you know.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a) states:

Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit

the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with

his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another

person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or other-

wise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee

is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

10. You learn on the job that Company X found the cure for a major disease. You

may not buy __________ in Company X before your agency announces the company

found the cure.

You are never permitted to use nonpublic information to get a jump on purchasing

stock for yourself, family members, friends, or anyone else. That would be taking

advantage of your government position for your own gain or the gain of others. Non-

public information remains nonpublic until that announcement is made.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.703(a) states:

Prohibition. An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using

nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information

to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through ad-

vice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.

EXERCISE ANSWER KEY