Section I. Introduction
Ethical dilemmas in public administration are commonplace. Whenever there are people, money, and power, there is an opportunity for corruption amongst public administrators. One of my favorite movie scenes comes from Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai, circa preindustrial Japan. A modern western corporation is vying for the regimes favor through a seedy relationship with the emperor’s chief of staff, Omura. The corporation presents the regime with an opportunity to build cross-country railroad systems and supply advanced technologies to the Japanese monarchic. The 1800’s traditional, agricultural centered populace is wary and suspicious of the western industrial corporation emissaries causing public conflict and discord. There is a war between the traditional samurai and the monarchs’ army because of the imposing changes. The technologically advanced army, using machine guns and cannons, slaughters the sword carrying samurai in battle. In the final scene only one samurai remains. Wounded and limping, he comes before Emperor Meiji to expose the truth behind the “sweat deal” with the western corporation. He informs the emperor that his trusted aide was secretly paid money to lie and sway approval for the corporation’s goals. Emperor Mejia angrily glares at Omura. The following passage occurs:
Logan (2003) writes in the script as follows:
Emperor Meiji: For what wealth have you caused great conflict and strife to my people. Omura, you have done quite enough.
Omura: Everything I have done, I have done for my country.
Emperor Meiji: Then you will not mind when I seize your family's assets and present them as my gift to the people.
Omura: [furious] you disgrace me!
Emperor Meiji: If your shame is too unbearable, I offer you this sword!

As Japanese tradition goes, Omura was given the option to fall on his sword or live in shame the remainder of his life. This is a perfect example of modern-day public administration ethical issues. One example is the dirty hands dilemma, when Omura claims his corrupt actions were for the good of the country. Shafrtiz (2013) states, “Public officials dirty their hands when they commit an act generally considered to be wrong to further the common good” (p. 178). The other ethical dilemma is cronyism and bribery In public administration. It is highly unethical to receive personal gain in the act of an official duty or grant a friend undue preference in the act of a public administration decision.
II. Statement of problem: Jenny, a recent master’s graduate, lands a dream job working in public service. Within a year, she witnesses many unethical practices occurring. She reports the abuse to upper management, who advise her to disregard what she thinks she witnessed.
Jenny is facing some key problems in her new workplace. They include: * Grant funds misallocated and mismanaged * Personal use of county property * Employment exams are improperly done due to cronyism and favoritism * Management is not supportive or refuses to act on her complaint
Jenny must decide to quit the new job, become a whistleblower exposing the corruption, or keep silent until she can effectively change the organization.

Violations of organizational and professional ethics are major problems in Jenny’s workplace.
Based on the hypothetical case, the pattern of an unethical organizational culture in Jenny’s office may come from upper management. When she advises the second in charge and he disregards the complaint, it shows the problem may come from the top.
The level of professionalism from Jenny’s fellow employees shows a lack of ethical behavior. As a result, short-term ramifications include an investigation by the ethics board, city commission hearings, and negative political fallout. Innocent workers may also be implicated. Long-term problems could result in public distrust of government. If unethical acts are deemed illegal, violators may face jail time.
Jenny has a difficult decision to make. She has a few options; however, none of them will be easy. She has the option of (1) not doing anything, hoping the abuses will stop. She could bide her time until she has some seniority and then attempt to change the organization from within. (2) She could go to the business manager or his supervisor and give them an opportunity to publically disclose the abuse or warn them she will become a whistleblower. (3) She could alert the States Attorney General and the grant administrator advising of the violations if her organization is not responsive to the complaints. (4) Jenny can alert the media, placing her allegations in the court of public opinion.
III. Problem diagnosis:
The first problem we will address is the mismanagement of grant funds. According to Shafrtiz (2011): “In a democratic society, we require our administrators to work within a system of democratic accountability, respond to complex system of checks and balances, and be subject to scrutiny by official auditors, by the media, and by community watchdogs and whistleblowers.” (p 189) The department has a fiduciary duty to handle grant funds appropriately. They are responsible for the proper use of funds as written in their contracts. The city is accountable if an audit determines misappropriation of grant funds. This could result in the city having to return misappropriated funds to the grantor, a loss of future funding, and being subject to civil penalties and damages.
The second problem is the unauthorized use of public property including vehicles. Government employees are bound by professional standards that require strict adherence. Using government owned property for personal use constitutes a breach of the public trust expected from public servants. The culture in the case depicts a department that behaves as if the governments exist to serve their personal needs instead of a government that is supposed to serve the needs of the public. Even seemingly harmless acts, like printing your personal homework on company time using company equipment, amounts to theft of public property. Taking innocuous items like pens, binders, and paperclips is also an example of misusing public property for your own gain, which is classified as theft.
The third problem is cronyism and favoritism in public administration. In Jenny’s department, the test proctors allowed cheating on employment exams by friends of current employees. Allowing cheating on civil service examinations is a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. More succinctly, it places people in positions they are not qualified for, thus hampering quality service to the public. The act of allowing friends to cheat on exams for employment destroys the public trust of government. Wechsler (2009) states, “Nepotism and its cousin, hiring friends, are the leading methods of keeping other ethnic and racial groups out of local government.” (Para 7) It is illegal and can bring great risk and liability to a public organization. Brittany Waltman (2000) writes an article describing two city employees that filed a federal EEOC complaint alleging discrimination over employment testing. The city had denied them several promotions even though they scored better on their exams then their white counterparts whom received promotions. Harold Wise and Elgin Jones won their case and the city had to pay them $500 thousand each in damages.
The final problem that we will address is management’s disregard of Jenny’s ethics and corruption complaints. Jenny wanted to do the right thing by doing what most reasonable people would do - take the matter to a supervisor. In this case, management advised her to disregard what she saw. This leads to two assumptions: either the management knew of the violations and had already started an internal investigation or management was complicit in the corruption. The manager may have been involved in a royal lie for the good of the department. Shafftriz (2009) states, “Machiavellianism refers to cunning, cynical and ruthless behavior based on the notion that the end justifies the means.” (p 167) The business manager may not have wanted to disrupt the business of the department with an ethics investigation, so he overlooked the violations.

IV. Decision criteria and alternative solutions

As mentioned, Jenny has several ways to respond to the problem.
First, if Jenny opts to bide her time, she would be using the utilitarian approach. The utilitarian approach will produce the most good and do the least harm. Jenny will bide her time and change the organization from within. In time, after she has seniority, she may be able to expose the abuse without hurting services to the community. She may not abruptly disrupt the department’s operations and may be able to root out the corruption over time.
Second, Jenny may take the rights approach, which respects the rights of all involved. In this case, she will give the violators an opportunity to “fall on the sword” and expose themselves with the threat of unveiling the corruption. This approach allows people to make their own choices. If the corrupt employees decide to continue their actions and not be honorable, then Jenny actions are justified.
Third, Jenny will take a stand of the employment hiring practices based on the fairness and justice approach. Greek philosophy holds to the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Allowing friends to cheat on exams and showing favoritism in hiring is neither fair nor just. Jenny will protect the rights of the disadvantaged and disenfranchised by exposing the cronyism in the department. Jenny has case law on her side. There is a plethora of EEOC and civil service reform case law that prohibit hiring friends that bypass normal hiring exams.
Fourth, if Jenny decides to take a common good approach, she may want to alert the media, the city council, or legal authorities of the abuses in her department. Although this option will certainly disrupt business operations, it will be for the purpose of improving the overall conditions and welfare of the community at large.
Fifth, Jenny may want to lean on her inner conscious to determine a course of action. To do what is right because it is right. Doing the right and ethical thing may mean disregarding the potential threats to her career, possibly being blacklisted or ostracized by colleagues. If she has regrets, she can ask herself “What would Jesus do?” The popular saying is based on the virtues approach of ethics. Jesus had only two commandments for his followers: Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. He also said do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, which is the golden rule. To act with virtue means to ask yourself- is this the best I can be? Doing what is right and virtuous can be lonely. Jenny will have to know her heart is pure and her intentions are for the good of the organization and not for personal vendettas. Take the case of Mark Whitacare. The ex-Arthur Daniels midland executive started a whistleblower case against ADM for fraud and corruption. It was later found that Whitacare himself was embezzling monies from ADM, which landed him 9 years in jail. If you stand on virtue, you cannot live in a glass house. This means if your cup is dirty do not try to wash someone else’s cup before you clean your own.

Section V. Plan of action
Based on the known facts, I recommend Jenny to utilize the rights approach, in three steps. 1) File a formal inter-department complaint. Jenny will submit a formal complaint in writing to the department manager. In the complaint, a time frame would be indicated for an expected response. If a response is not given, I would advise Jenny to expose their wrong doing. 2) Publically threaten to expose the department’s corruption. Jenny would send out a press release alerting city officials, media, watchdogs, and legal authorities of a government scandal in her department. The press release will promise that management in her department will disclose damming information about corrupt hiring practices, misuse of public property and mismanagement of grant funds. 3) Allow the department management an opportunity to address the allegations in public. Jenny will have two podiums set up at the press conference. One podium will have the name of the supervisor prominently displayed; her name will be prominently displayed on the other. As the press assemble and the presser begins, Jenny will announce the supervisors name (whether he is present or not really does not matter) if he is there he can disclose the abuses or state why he failed to address the allegations. If he is not present Jenny will point to the empty podium and say, “my supervisor was invited to disclose the abuses in the department, but since he has declined to show up I will tell you what I know to be true.” Jenny would present all the ethics violations and evidence she has obtained. In doing this she presented the supervisor an opportunity to be honorable and address the allegations in public.

References: (Logan, 2003) The Last Samurai, Paramount Studios, Hollywood CA, reprinted from IMDB website http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers shafritz, j. M. (2013). Introducing public administration. upper saddle river: pearson. waltman, b. (2000, january 21). EEOC finds discrimation in lauderdale. sun sentinel, p. 27. http://articles.sun- (waltman, 2000)sentinel.com/keyword/eeoc.
Wechsler, R. (2009, july 9). Why neptism is unethical blob. Retrieved from Cityethics.org: http://www.cityethics.org/node/811