Ethical Issues In The Federal Government’s Department Of Defense Essay Example for Free

Ethical Issues In The Federal disposals Department Of plea EssayIf there could be anything in the the Statesn goernment that the sphere has abundant been admiring, it would always be its armament strength. Besides its technology, high product standards, its m hotshoty, transportation and educational facilities, the humans has been looking up at America because of its excellence in the field war and battle. It would seem for the rest of the world that Uncle Sams haven offers a smooth-sailing life that people of different colors race and rarityeavour to come over. The big enquiry to dig into is this Is America free of corruption and abuse? The answer to the question is a big no. In this paper, we will try to look into the ethical standards of the Federal Government for the purpose of having a benchmark in our evaluation of the ethical deviations inside the organization. Specifically, we will try to gauge how the Department of defense lawyers go through the process of p rocurement and will try to pin token where the taint in such(prenominal) process is, resulting to fraud and abuse. This paper has included actual hook cases where the Department of demur was involved.Through these processes, we will be able to prove that no matter how correctly the policies and laws of the Federal Government, the decently America seat non control its entire people and prohibit them from overriding personal interests and public religious belief. At the end of this paper, the author hopes to have the readers convinced that Federal laws and policies still have flaws and that should be taken into consideration the soonest possible in order for the American nation and the rest of the world restore its fading give and confidence over the people behind their security.President George Bush during his term, likely ensuring the public of their trust towards the governing body, issued a separate order that would serve as guideline for strict compliance of all person nel presently serving the public. Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990, entitled Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees orders each authorities employee to avoid, pr veritable(a)t and help detect fraud and adhere to ethical standards at all clips and situations.The first office of the EO12731 provides catchy ethical principles which prevent each employee to hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of affair and engage in financial transactions using non-public government information or allow the ill-timed use of such information to further any private interest (section 101-b and c). Subsections of the order also make each employee to act will full honesty in their duties and near importantly they be not allowed to use public office for private gain.The Federal Government, based on its laws and policies, has been straightforward and clear as to guiding its public servants to the proper, ethical behavior they should display all the time. So why are there still countless cases and accusations that have been polluting the air of the public servants? What is much frustrating to know is the detail that even in the Department of Defense, many employees and management personnel has been proven to be contributing to such corruption.The fact of unethical behavior existing in the Federal government is not just an outside manifestation but is also universe recognized by those working inside the organization. In a military press release issued by the Ethics Resource Center, it turned out that 52% of the Federal employees are mindful and are witnesses of at least one type of misbehavior among their colleagues in the previous year. What is more is that besides 30% of federal official workers surveyed believe their organizations have well-implemented ethics and compliance programs and that only one in 10 said there is a fancyive ethical culture in their federal workplace (ERC 2008). nigh one quarter of public sector employees identifies their work environments as conducive to misconduct places where there is strong pressure to compromise standards, where situations invite wrongdoing and/or employees personal values conflict with the values espoused at work (Harned, Patricia cited in Smith, Ralph 2008). In reference to the reports mentioned above, this paper made an impression that there might be something inside the Federal government that attracts employees to disregard ethical considerations and to prefer personal interests over public trust. unity thing obvious thing is money. The Federal government, even though have limited financial resources, has probably been the close liquid source of kickbacks for the bad apples in the barrel. It is worth noting that the U. S. government is the largest consumer of prime contracts (Lander, Gerald et. al. 2008). Using this continent information, we can distinctly conclude that there is enough money for the bad apples on hand . Moreover, it would be truly easy for us to extract the fact that the money is more attracting for those inside the procurement departments.As to federal spending, reports say that procurement contracts have been the fastest-growing part of the discretionary budget. In fact, procurement spending rose 86%, twice as fast as other discretionary spending, which rose 43% between 2000 and 2005. Moreover, such spending composed of 40 cents per dollar of discretionary spending (Ibid). The figures are quite more than lovely and conducive for the bad apples to abuse the trust and authorities vested on them by the public. Despite the fact that trust is held as the most important asset of the government, there is one thing that even the most tendinous government cannot control greed.It is a human element that the procurement agencies of the government intentionally or unexpectedly tolerate. The uncontrollable fact of human greed is even recognized by the Department of Defense. As the spoke sman of the Pentagon, Dan Howard has noted, The acquirement system is sound but there is no system on the face of this earth that tout ensemble obviates the human reckon greed. And that is why we have policing systems (The New York Times, June 26, 1988). The trust placed by the public over the Department of Defense continue to fade as more and more cases of fraud files in court have resulted to countless convictions.In Philadelphia alone, the investigation conducted at the Defense Personnel Support Center, resulted in the bill of indictment of 28 individuals and companies on various fraud charges. Such procurement transactions involved textile and vestments industry which have government contracts on uniforms, tents, boots for the build up forces. Here then is the chance for us to want these questions What is the purpose of having ethical standards in the federal government? be these statements of ethical behaviors for the sake of complying with the SEC requirements?Are the ethical standards unsound or the problem of abuse of power and ethical deviance matters of implementation flaws? Referring peculiarly to the Department of Defense, it is unlikely that these educated people came short of understanding the ethical concepts. In fact, the departments publication, Armed Forces Comptroller, the author recognizes the fact that their personnel understand the concept of ethics. The author even stressed that most of them are required to attend some form of mandatory ethics training (Benoit, Diana 2006).The Department of Defense has in fact sound which they consider as forming the ethical foundation of the Dept of Defense personnel. For the purpose of evaluation, permit us try to look into these then core concepts. The author stressed that these core concepts reflect the standards and expectations of military personnel and federal employees throughout the organization (Ibid). The first of the ethical concepts is honesty which they define as being truthful an d straightforward, regardless of grade or rank.Honesty is regarded by the department as an ethical concept that goes beyond being trustworthy that it encourages its employees to do not only what is legal but also what is right. relation to this, abuse of power and betrayal of trust still include acts or attempts of hiding the truth. If the Department of Defense personnel clearly understand this concept, there should have been no reason to remain silent on issues that involves witnessing ethical deviance inside the organization. The ethical concept of honesty goes beyond the issues of actual money laundering.It encompasses holding accurate records and completing tasks to the extent of ones capacity and ability. This means that coming to the office late, freeing out early taking breaks more than the allowable time are forms of cheating and thus are unethical behaviors. Cheating the taxpayers could also mean using office supplies for personal activities or lavish function of such resources. What is frustrating is that this concept is being disregarded by high ranking employees of the department at a considerably higher level of deception as mentioned above.Simple cheating in record keeping and of utilizing government resources for personal use can be detected and be prevented at the deject level of organization. However, it would be a different thing to know that cheating is even more honest at the higher level of management who are expected to be the jurisprudence in the department. In fact, the report released by the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, the United States recouped more than $1. billion dollars in settlements and judgments pursuing allegations of fraud and in the next fiscal year, the government recovered a record total of more than $3. 1 billion in settlements and judgments from cases involving claims of fraud (Lander et. al 2008).Closely relate to the ethics of honesty is the concept of in tegrity which the DOD defines as doing the right thing the first time and every time. In an observation by one of the members of the Special Investigations Unit of the Minnesota Bureau of immoral Apprehension in St. Paul, Special Agent Timothy J. OMalley recognizes the temptations of fraud in their field.OMalley said police officers face greater temptations than they did just a decade or so ago (Bladow, J. 1994). As an agent, he can pinpoint the fact that the department handles explosives and illegal drug cases which obviously involve a capacious sum of money. Taking OMalleys exact words, a tremendous amount of illicit cash in fuels this market. Here then lies one uncontrollable factor that we can consider. Money is the central thing that enables the government to run. It is money that is the main reason why people oftentimes compromise integrity and principles with dollars.Money enables the government to provide services to public. Employees have to be paid with salaries, supp lies have to be bought, buildings have to be constructed, communication and transportation facilities have to be purchased and improved. In fact, America will never be the most powerful nation in the world without its money spent in technology, education and basic government facilities. Moreover, America cannot in anyway be respected or shall we say be feared by other nations if not for its military strength. It is a rare instance that this nation is being challenged by the terrorists during the 911 event.What this paper would like to point out is that even though money is an uncontrollable element in the federal government and curiously in the procurement agency of the department of Defense, transaction processes involving money are very much controllable. In fact, the DOD has sound policies and physical processs expressed in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, and nurture (PGI). In brief, these regulations and guidelines were codified and implemented for procedure compliance purposes especially on procurement transactions undergone by the department.In its Section 201. 304, FAR requires the approval of the USD (ATL) before including in a department/agency or component supplement, or any other contracting regulation document such as a policy letter or clause book, any policy, procedure, clause, or form that has a significant nitty-gritty beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 2004).Where then lays the procedure flaw- on the approving committee or on those who presents the facts of the procurement contracts? The answer does not solely lies on these precepts. The factors that corrupt integrity in the Department of Defense can be traced in the early show of the hiring process. The applicant selection process represents a critical, though sometimes overlooked, component of police ethics programs (Bonczek, S. and D. Menzel 1994). The authors invoke that the agency should thoroughly conduct interviews, psychological tests, and extensive background checks (Ibid, p. 4).This would then ensure an applicants compatibility with the departments ethical philosophy. This process can be beneficial in the early identification of red flags in an applicants personality before he gets into the department. Even if not all of the factors contributing to the unethical behavior of an employee can be detected at this stage, there are considerable preventive measures that are being through here that can prevent a rotten tomato mingle with the good ones inside the basket.The riskier the world becomes, the higher the standards should the department implement in order to maintain, if not to enhance the integrity of the defenders of the American security. As one observer have noted, it is important that high st andards in the hiring process be maintained at all times because of the fact that diminished standards or incomplete background checks have resulted in the hiring of armed robbers, burglars, and drug dealers as police officers (D. Holmquist 1993, p. 38). We have to remember that temptations are everywhere and that is one uncontrollable factor inside the department of defense. Because DOD has got much money to offer especially in the procurement transactions, it clearly caters to a tempting environment. However it cannot really be an excuse neither it will justify ones act of corruption. Deviance to ethical standards is a clear betrayal of trust and a post in the name of the person, if he even cares enough for it.A recent nurture established that fast-talking, outgoing, assertive, and confident risk takers represent the best candidates for undercover work. While this may come as no surprise, the study also concluded that these personality traits are often the same ones predisposin g an officer to corruption and psychological excruciation (Bladow, p. 12). This suggests that a good apple in the barrel has always the chance of being badly influenced by others.Strict hiring standards are therefore required to be implemented during the hiring process at all levels. law of nature managers must view their hiring standards as components of managing for ethics (Wells, S. A. 1993, p. 67). Strict adherence to employee selection is a must although revolution in the law enforcement departments must also be considered in order to foster diverse citizenry. Agencies should not pursue the goal of a diversified workforce at the expense of one of law enforcements most valued asset- integrity (Travis, M. A. 1994, p. 1717).