Friendly Advice Or Quid Pro Quo?

This case is one of a series written to illustrate ethical dilemmas that occur in public service.
Please share your comments or questions by posting to this site.

After working five years at the plan-checking counter at Robinsdale city hall, Gary Hess was
looking forward to submitting his resume for the vacancy as assistant planning director. His
interactions with the customers coming to have their building permits and architectural plans
approved had been challenging in the beginning, but he felt he had “done his time” and had
enough experience to warrant the promotion.

The city manager decided to hold an open recruitment for the position. Succession planning was
one of her priorities. There were going to be several retirements in the Planning and Inspection
Department, so she was looking for someone with management potential. To his great
disappointment Gary was passed over, and the job went to Wendy Boone, a planning assistant
from a neighboring city. When he asked the city manager why he was not chosen, she replied,
“Your time will come. Right now I need strong leadership.”

While he was driving home that evening Gary was increasingly angry over the hiring decision.
Not only would he be “stuck” working with the public at the counter, he had missed an
opportunity for a more prestigious title and a substantial pay increase he had been counting on.
Rather than stay mad, he decided to find a way to make the most of his situation.

The city had compiled a list of approved, licensed contractors that was available at the counter.
This list did not imply a recommendation – it was meant to help residents, architects, and
builders by listing those companies with a city as well as state license.

Gary began contacting companies on the list, suggesting that because he “admired their work” he
would be willing to make a specific recommendation to people who came to the counter.
Although he did not ask outright for anything in return, two of the companies promised a
financial “bonus” for each contract that came through his recommendation. A third company
offered use of a mountain cabin so that Gary and his family could take occasional weekends off
to ski.

At first Gary was selective in making these “transactions,” but after six months his kickbacks
seemed to be going undetected, and he became bolder. He bought a new car and began bragging
about his “weekend at the chalet.”

In her six-month review of department operations—an audit of all activities—Wendy noticed the
unusual number of contracts that were going to just three of the two dozen names of the list.
When she questioned Gary, he denied any wrongdoing, and insisted that the three companies on
the list were, in his opinion, superior. Further, there were no written rules prohibiting making
personal recommendations.

Questions for discussion:

  Is it unethical for a city employee to make recommendations based on his or her
experience?
 Would Gary’s actions have been acceptable if he had not engaged in a quid pro quo?
 What action should Wendy take with Gary? With other department employees?
 Is there anything the city manager might do to prohibit this type of behavior?

Wht do you think?

No Such Thing as a Free Ticket

Because hockey was her favorite sport, Councilwoman Alexandra Evers was thrilled to take her
colleague Don Phillips up on his offer to attend the All-Star game which was being played in
their city. Phillips indicated he had a free, extra ticket, and would meet her at the sports arena the
night of the game.

When she arrived, she saw Phillips with Marc Eyre, president of the local cable franchise. She
assumed they had bumped into each other in the lobby and was surprised when she realized she
was joining Eyre in the cable company's box along with Phillips, his family, and other friends.
Because the city was beginning to negotiate a new cable contract she felt especially
uncomfortable when the executive sat next to her. In an attempt to be clear that this was a social
event, not an opportunity to talk business, the councilwoman announced to both her colleague
and to Eyre that she had absolutely no plans to talk about the cable contract or any other issues
associated with the city. Even with that said, she found herself in the middle of a wide-ranging
discussion of the future of the telecommunications industry that skirted on the city's expansion
into new areas of service.

At the end of the game she hurried home and wrote a letter to Eyre, asking for the cost of the
ticket so that she could reimburse the company, and copied her colleague. Both responded that
there was no cost - it was a free ticket that was part of the season privileges purchased by the
cable company. She felt betrayed by her colleague for setting her up and frustrated that her
attempts to pay for the ticket were thwarted.

Questions: Should Councilwoman Evers have left the game as soon as she found out where she
was sitting?
How should she now proceed?

This case was developed by Judy Nadler, senior fellow in government ethics at the Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics and former mayor of the city of Santa Clara, Calif. The story is
fictional, but the case represents a typical dilemma confronted by elected officials.

Political Perk or Part of the Job?

When Marty Gibson became the mayor of Williams, he set a strict code for himself: no freebies,
no gifts, no special treatment. His pledge came, in part, because of the free-wheeling attitude of
his predecessor, who had become known in the community for demanding special privileges
based on his public office. More than one business reported that they had felt "coerced" into
giving major discounts on goods or services, or providing items at no cost when the former
mayor came by. Gibson reasoned that as long as he stuck to his pledge, no one could accuse him
of taking advantage of his office or of being biased in any decisions that came before the council.

The other members of the city council weren't willing to completely give up the "perks" and
decided to follow the city code and state laws, which allowed them to receive gifts as long as
they were reported.

The mayor faced a dilemma when the invitation came for him to throw out the first pitch at the
opening game of the Williams Hornets, a national baseball franchise, and watch the game from
the VIP box. The owners of the ballpark had submitted plans for expansion of the facility to
include a major retail component, which was opposed by local businesses. He was struggling
with the decision because it could appear to the public as a "political perk" or simply as part of
his official duties as the mayor. The other members of the council planned to accept the offer of
VIP tickets, and the vice mayor indicated she would be more than willing to throw out the first
ball.

Questions:

Should Mayor Gibson throw out the first ball?

If he does, should he stay for the game? Sit in the stands or in the VIP box?

This case was developed by Judy Nadler, senior fellow in government ethics at the Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics and former mayor of the city of Santa Clara, Calif. The story is
fictional, but the case represents a typical dilemma confronted by elected officials.

Bonne Blackburn

Bonnie Blackburn was known as a pillar of the community. The owner of a small insurance firm,
she knew the movers and shakers in town, and wrote policies for most of them. Her likeable
personality and political savvy earned her appointment to the county planning commission,
where her negotiating skills were responsible for salvaging several controversial land
developments, including a messy sale of surplus State land.

Her success was noted by the governor, who appointed her to the California State Historical
Resources Commission. During the two years she served as a commissioner, Bonnie gained even
more renown as a hard-working and effective representative, leading her family and supporters
to draft her for an open seat on the Veritas City Council.

Following her election in November 2001, Bonnie brought new energy to City Hall, tapping her
many connections across the state. "People are finally giving Veritas the respect it deserves,"
said Mayor Michael Sweeney. "Bonnie's got the governor's attention and tons of connections,
and that can only mean great things for our city."

But Bonnie's first year in office, however, ended in tumult, as she found herself facing charges
from the district attorney's political corruption unit. An anonymous source disclosed that she and
her husband had taken several all-expense-paid trips to Las Vegas from a prominent landowner
who had a shopping mall project before the city council. While she initially denied taking the
trips, Bonnie later admitted she had made a "reporting" mistake, explaining that the trips were
from an "old friend who has been an insurance client for ages." She argued that it was a
coincidence that he had a project in the pipeline.

The media have been covering the story aggressively, and while her council colleagues and a
newspaper editorial have urged her resignation, she insisted on remaining in office pending the
results of the district attorney's investigation. The majority of the council had proposed to strip
her of her committee appointments until the case was resolved, but the mayor said "She's too
important to us on those county committees, and we should keep her in place. She's innocent
until proven guilty. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water."

Questions:

1. How do relationships with "old friends" change when you are elected?
2. Should her colleagues on the City Council take away her committee appointed merits?

This case has been prepared by Judy Nadler, Senior Fellow in Government ethics, as the basis
for class discussion rather than to illustrate effective or ineffective handling of a governmental
situation.