Ethics

Identify the ethical obligations of public officials and others (including, for example, contractors) involved in the case.  Consider the existence and role of any competing obligations and organizational culture.  (Terry Cooper’s The Responsible Administrator serves as a framework for this topic.)
•    What societal values were violated by the perpetrators?
•    What organizational values were violated by the perpetrators?
•    What were the ethical obligations of the public officials involved?
•    Were competing obligations apparent in this case?
•    What about those who were not public officials?
•    What ethical obligations, if any, did they have to the public?
•    Were there competing obligations apparent in this case?
•    What was the ethical culture of the organizations involved?
•    Did ethical culture play a role in the case?
•    What notions of Cooper are applicable in this case?
•    What notions of Cooper are not applicable in this case?

Perspective 2: Accountability
Objective:    Consider three fundamental accountability questions and identify the organizations involved in investigating or auditing the case:
•    To whom were the public officials accountable?  Did those include non-governmental organizations? Was there conflict or cooperation or both among the organizations enforcing accountability?
•    For what were the public officials accountable?
•    How were they held accountable?
•    As appropriate, also address the accountability environment of contractors and other private parties and individuals.
•    What about those who were not public officials?
•    To whom were they accountable?  For what? How?
•    What is the source of their accountabilities?
•    Were the accountability expectations of public officials and nonpublic participants reasonable or excessive?
•    Were the right people held accountable for the right things?

Perspective 3: Prevention
Objective:      Consider what preventive and reform recommendations might be made.
•    What is the nature and scope of the environment, or what external influences or factors permitted the violation(s) to occur?
•    What would be the objectives and goals of an acceptable solution in the environment in which the violation occurred?
•    Who or what are the influences found in the environment that can help bring about an acceptable solution or remediate other similar violations?
•    How would you judge or what criteria would you use to determine if the acceptable solution was implemented?
•    What other approaches to prevention could be developed that might be acceptable or workable?
•    Identify the framework of the workable costs and benefits elements of the workable approach to prevention.
•    What reforms, corrective actions, or other changes were recommended or implemented as a result of the case?
•    Were they sufficient to prevent similar problems in the future?

You should use Eugene Bardach’s book, A Practical Guide to Policy Analysis, for guidance in designing your prevention strategy, in the weekly assignments as well as in the term project paper.

Alternating Weeks

Perspective 4: Economics, Consequences and Outcomes
Objective:    Consider the economic impact, consequences and outcomes of the case
•    What were the consequences or results of this case?
•    Were responsible parties held accountable?
•    Were all of the responsible parties held accountable?
•    Who was harmed in the case?
•    What was the economic and social impact of the case on society in general?
•    What was the personal impact of the case on the victims or targets?
•    Estimate the costs of the conduct in the case to society, the government and the private victims in the case.
•    Estimate the cost of the investigation and subsequent criminal or administrative interventions.
•    Can the costs and benefits of the case be reconciled?

Perspective 5: Evidence
Objective:    Consider the methods and standards used in the investigation or audit, and the evidence or proof assembled in the investigation.
•    What evidence was assembled in the process of investigation in the case?
•    What techniques were used to assemble or develop the evidence?
•    What were the major investigative or audit methods used in the case?  Do you think the right methods were used?  Was the evidence presented sufficient and appropriate?
Rotation (Assigned to every Nth student)

Perspective 6:  Incentives and justifications
Objective:    Identify the incentives of the subjects of the case and whether and how they justified or rationalized their actions.
•    What were the apparent incentives of the responsible parties?
•    How did these incentives contribute to apparent transgressions or poor judgment in this case?
•    Did the responsible parties justify their actions?
•    What were their justifications?
•    Were their justifications persuasive?
•    Did the responsible parties present legal defenses to their actions?
•    Were they credible?
•    What was the history of the responsible parties with respect to the type of conduct involved?
•    Had they done this before?
•    Did they have experience that prepared them to do what they did?
•    Were there any mitigating circumstances that might partially justify what took place?

Perspective 7: Legal and regulatory framework
Objective:    Consider the laws and rules involved in the case and take a position on whether they are clear, necessary, and reasonable.
•    What were the laws or rules involved in this case?
•    Do you think that the laws and rules were reasonable and clear?
•    Were they sufficient to guide the participants and promote ethical, accountable behavior?

Perspective 8: Political and bureaucratic environment
Objective:    Consider the political and bureaucratic environment in which the case took place and evaluate the impact of the environment on the events and actions that took place.
•    What was the political context of the case?
•    Did the political environment affect the case?
•    Did it serve to facilitate or inhibit the discovery, investigation or audit, and/or disposition of the case?
•    What was the bureaucratic context of the case?  Did the bureaucratic environment affect the case?  Did it serve to facilitate or inhibit the discovery, investigation or audit, and/or disposition of the case?

Perspective 9: Media and other nongovernmental entities
Objective:    Examine the role of media in the case.
•    What was the involvement of media or other nongovernmental entities in Identifying, pursuing, or promoting transparency regarding the case?
•    Did they promote, assist, or interfere with governmental accountability processes?
•    What were the motivations of the media and other nongovernmental entities?
•    Were reported accusations, claims, or editorial statements reasonable given the information available?
•    Did they report the matter fairly?
•    What obligations did the media have in reporting on this case?
•    What is the source of those obligations?
•    Were those obligations met?
•    What obligations did other nongovernmental entities have in reporting on this case?
•    What is the source of those obligations?
•    Were those obligations met?

Perspective 10: Historical Context
Objective:    Examine the history of similar cases.
•    Did other similar cases precede this case?
•    Were there investigations and reforms? Should the case have been prevented?
•    Were there lessons learned that were considered in the case under study?
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]