Organizational Roadblocks to Prevent Public Misconduct Presented at the Ethics and Integrity of Governance: A Transatlantic Dialogue Conference, Leuven, Belgium, June 2 - 5, 2005 By: Terrance A. Johnson, DPA, CBM, CFE Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Lincoln University (PA)
[email protected] David L. Johnson Undergraduate Research Assistant Lincoln University (PA) Jameel M. White Undergraduate Research Assistant Lincoln University (PA)
[email protected] With Concluding Thoughts from: Raymond W. Cox, III, Ph.D. Professor of Public Administration The University of Akron
[email protected]
“Organizational Roadblocks to Prevent Public Misconduct” INTRODUCTION Many scholars have studied police misconduct over the last three decades. One scholar in particular has distinguished himself in the effort to get at the root cause of the problem. The late Carl B. Klockars has been the leading scholar in this area of cultural influences that police organizations have on officers. Johnson’s (2001) has attempted to follow in Klockars’ footsteps in advancing the idea that the organization is culpable for bad acts committed by agents. Johnson and Cox (2005) extended Johnson’s by examining what the law enforcement community has been doing to change the culture of the profession so that the effects of ethics training can be measured by empirical research. Their research has revealed that policing is providing ethics training to its officers at the end of basic training through a familiarization method of delivery, which has failed to provide the officers with a conceptual foundation for understanding beyond what is right and wrong. Johnson’s (2001) review of government efforts to deal with the problem of public misconduct has exposed some old and well-known themes. The role of government in the lives of its citizens is important, and many feel people that those in leadership roles have an ethical and moral duty to try to curb this ongoing problem (Johnson, 2005b). If government is to maintain the peoples' confidence, it must operate above board at all times. The slightest accusation of wrongdoing by one public official can erode the public’s confidence. In the United States and also internationally, public executives work tirelessly to achieve and maintain the public’s trust. Culturally and sub-culturally patterns often counteract their efforts to set the course for not only an ethical government but also society as a whole. Government agencies have long sought to achieve accountability over its bureaucracy by holding an individual and/or group responsible for some ill will has been fostered and developed early on in the American psyche. The federal and state government has cultivated an internal, independent administrative system in an attempt gain control of its operations. These practices, borrowed from the private sector, 2
often have failed because they cannot be applied successfully to public institutions. Wilson (1989) in his seminal work, What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, states that business and government have different motivations operate differently to achieve their goals. Zupan (1991) and Johnson (2003a) have echoed Wilson’s theme in this area. Johnson (2003a) has explicitly looked at using the business-like approach in policing and has determined it to be ineffective. The federal government provides a comprehensive ethics-training program for employees assigned to the executive branch of government. The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) also provides advice to questions posed by government employees regarding situations that can be deemed questionable. A few states have followed suit by providing the same regulatory oversight and also offering a client-type service to its executive branch employees (Burke and Benson, 1989). While law enforcement has provided ethics in its training through scenario-based initiatives during initial training, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has a comprehensive ethics training program that is offered to agencies as a tailor-made, content-based program. The IACP offers specific ethics training at its annual conference. It allows input from its members on the curriculum before the national conference and all feedback on training regardless of the avenue of delivery. ORGANIZATION THEORY AND THE ETHICAL DILEMMA ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE The concept of culture has been adopted from the field of Anthropology and has been defined in many ways and from different perspectives. Generally, culture is defined as the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, and so forth that characterize the way that people agree to do things. Norms, values and beliefs help determine what is acceptable behavior (Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson and Cox, 2005). The societal culture helps to shape the organizational culture (Shrafitz & Ott, 1992, p. 482; Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson and Cox, 2005).
3
Culture has many meanings. When the term “culture” is paired with the term “organization,” [results in a] “conceptual and semantic confusion” results (Shafritz & Ott, 1992, p. 492; Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson and Cox, 2005). Organizational culture contains groups that are socially distinct from each other. However, organizational culture is the training of the mind that sets apart the members of one society from each other. Organizational culture, therefore, resides in the minds of all organization members (Johnson, 2001, 2003; Johnson and Cox, 2005). Creating an Organizational Culture for Control The oldest theories of organizations (and the most discredited) assert that the proper way to manage is through control mechanisms (rules and structures), thus regulating behavior and introducing predictability (Johnson, 2001; Johnson, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). Control seemingly offers the ability to determine events and predict or anticipate outcomes (Umiker, 1999; Johnson, 2001; Johnson, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). Organizations instill notions of “acceptable behavior” into the minds of employees through training or learning processes (particularly with in-group sessions) from the very beginning of employment. The main focus of law enforcement has been to control officers through the use of a paramilitary system with a bureaucratic hierarchical structure (Wilson, 1989; Zupan, 1991; Johnson, 2001; Johnson & Cox, 2005). The cadet is enculturated into this hierarchy through the training provided at police academies (West, 1998). Such academies have far more in common with military boot camps than the classroom.
The
lessons are about physicality and esprit (Cox, 2002). Instilling Proper Behavior Communicating the proper way to act in an organization is an important task. If people are clearly told the way they should conduct themselves, there should be very little misunderstanding. Teaching
4
people how to act in an organizational setting is nothing more than teaching correct organizational behavior through organizational learning. The concept of organizational learning has been around since the 1960s (Johnson, 2001). The interest in organizational learning increased during that time but has taken a different direction (Johnson, 2001). However, a clear definition has not developed (Johnson, 2001, 2003b). The lack of a definition of organizational learning allowed different themes to be explored (Johnson, 2001, 2003b).
“Learning [was] too narrowly . . . [defined] as mere ‘problem solving,’ so they could focus on
identifying and correcting errors in the external environment” (Argyris, 1999, p. 127). Learning “is the detection and correction of error. An error is any mismatch between our intentions and what actually happens” (Argyris, p. 165). Organizational learning as a stimulation process used to open up ideas about knowledge (Johnson, 2001). GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSBILITY FOR CREATING AN ETHICAL SOCIETY The Universal Problem of Establishing Ethical Conduct in Society The issue of ethical behavior is a universal problem that continues to challenge chief executives worldwide. Public administrators have been stymied by the effect that organizational culture as they have attempted to install an ethical workplace (Brady, 2004). The implementation of sound management practices is a difficult task when public officials are always under scrutiny (Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). The behavior of public employees is a reflection on government as a whole. Therefore, the mere appearance of impropriety must be avoided at all cost. The European’s Attempts at Creating an Ethical Environment within Government The concern over ethical conduct in European governments has steadily diminished since the 1960s (Bekke and van der Meer, 2000; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). The Netherlands government has called for an across the board policy that would improve the overall perception of government. Improving
5
government’s image is an important goal because the public’s perception is in fact a reality. The Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1996, 2000) that has encompassed twentynine western countries has supported this notion. The end result has been the formalization of a solid ethical concept that includes the principle idea that managing ethics in an effort to bolster the belief in government. (Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). The Dutch Government Prior to the 1990s, Dutch citizens did not concern themselves with the conduct of their public employees. There had been a highly repressive internal monitoring system to ensure certain conduct was followed. The clear division of labor had been seen as a good way to augment this punitive mechanism for controlling the behavior official government officials (Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). The system had been formulated under the religious and moral sense of what was right and wrong until the 1960s (Van der Meer & Raadschelders, 2003). This value-base theory had gone through a transformation period before being able to clearly decide about acceptable behavior. When Religion lost its influence over the practice, the stronghold on society began to disappear. The fostering of a “me” attitude and the influx of a multi-ethnic population in the society demanded that the role of the public official be plainly defined (van Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). The mere suspicious of wrongdoing by one government employee tainted the entire operation as a well as government as a whole; thus, the concept of democratic governance cannot exist (van Blijswijk, van Breukelen, and Slupm, 2002). The African, Asian, South American, and Middle East Attempts at Ethics Developing Countries in Four Established Continents Prior to the 1970s, there was a belief that only developing countries of the Continents of Africa, Southeast Asia, South America, and the Middle East were dealing with ethical issues. These newly formed governments faced the same cultural barriers ad the well-established societies. The government officials 6
were still obligated to try to remove the “ecological” roadblocks and put into place a reasonable model such the Angelo-Saxon one used in public administration (van Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). GOVERNMENT ETHICS IN THE UNITED STATES THE LEGISLATIVE REPONSE TO ENSURING ETHICS IN THE BUREACRACY Government’s Attempt to Gain Accountability through a Culture of Control Kearns (1996) and Johnson, 2003a) said that accountability resulted in a person being answerable for their own actions. Accountability is also more than a handful of rules; it is a moral, professional, and ethical reasonability of an individual, a group, a company or society to do what is right (Ott, Boonyarak, Dicke, 2001). Wilson (1887) believed that the first step in ensuring proper government oversight was to determine what it could do correctly and effectively. After that, the function of public employees should be done with efficiency. Bureaucrats should answerable directly to the elected officials and the elected officials to the electorate (Finer, 1941). However, Friedrich (1940) believed that public employees should have discretion and needed training to prepare them to handle the responsibility. The Era of the Internal Watchdog in the Federal Government: The Office of Inspectors General The Congress and states legislators play a key role in the ethics process. They establish the tone for acceptable behavior in their own domain and for the President and Governors in federal and state government. According to Mainzer (1973), the primary way to gain control over government operations (that includes accountability) was through the oversight process. The growth of government during the twentieth century has convinced legislators to use sunshine laws, sunset provisions, and general legislative oversight to achieve maximum control over public employees. General reports to Congress, independent audits performed by congressional staff and relative functioning indicators of how government conducted business (Johnson & Levin, 1991).
7
Most federal departments and agencies (including branches of the military) had a non-statutory Office of Inspector (OIG) and an inspector general (IG) The OIG and IG reported directly to the secretary or the agency administrator. The 1978 Inspectors General Act (1981 and 1988, as amended) placed independent watchdogs in most departments and agencies under the executive branch (see Inspectors General Act of 1978 PL 95 - 452). This Act took the private sector concept of combining the audit and investigative units of government. The objective has been to ensure a coordinated effort to the fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The inspectors general (IGs) have been allowed to start and complete audits and investigations of programs either administrated or overseen by its department or agency (Johnson, 2005). Although the Act required the IGs to employ an “Arm of Management” approach over the “Lone Wolf” approach,” the Office of Inspectors General (OIGs) have become somewhat fixated on producing data that show arrests of persons suspected of committing wrongdoing. The IGs’ semi-annual reports to Congress support this belief. The Congress and the public prefers a quick way of dealing with a problem through numbers that shows arrests and convictions of individuals involved in illegal behavior over the lengthy process of training and making people aware of rules and regulations, and waiting to see if misconduct is reduced because of the efforts (Johnson, 2005a). State Governments’ Attempt at Combating Misconduct According to Hyde (1992), public corruption was so rampant in state government that many states created an independent watchdog to address the issue of ethics. Some states required the fiscal watchdog be an elected office to ensure the maximum level of independent from the executive branch. Pennsylvania is one state that followed this blueprint for combating unethical behavior in the executive branch of government by creating a statutory Office of the Auditor General This office has many of the audits and investigated powers as the federal statuary IGs, accept the power to arrest and to issue administrative subpoenas (Johnson, 2005a). However, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania went one step further then 8
most states in the late 1970s. According to Johnson (2005a), the election of Richard Thornburgh brought in a new era in government. Governor Thornburgh issued an Executive Order creating the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and placed the Office within the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The Governor designated PennDOT as the most corrupt agency under his control. The inspector general (IG) had authority only to investigative alleged misconduct within the mission of PennDOT. He reported to the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Administration for the Governor (Johnson, 2005a). With the election of Robert P. Casey of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the role of the OIG and IG was expended. Governor Casey issued an executive Order that placed the IG and the Office under the Executive Office of the Governor and the IG report directly to him. Although the IG was not IG and the OIG had no statutory authority, the Office served as one of the first states IGs in the country. The states of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts OIGs mirrored the federal concept by combining the audit and investigative functions. Pennsylvania took the sole investigative approach and the “Lone Wolf” approach instead of the “Arm of Management” approach discussed by Paul Light (Johnson, 2005a). The United States Office of Government Ethics According to the United States Office of Government Ethics’ website the organization has the following mission: ‘’The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), a small agency within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management, OGE became a separate agency on October 1, 1989 as part of the Office of Government Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988 (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/backgrnd_mission.html). The Office of Government Ethics exercises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of Government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do occur. In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, OGE fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public's confidence that the Government's business is conducted with impartiality and integrity (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/backgrnd_mission.html). 9
“Ethics Agreement Compliance” PSD also tracks each Presidential appointee's compliance with any ethics agreements the appointee made during the Senate confirmation process. These agreements concerning the financial interests of the appointees, their spouses, and their dependent children are made to bring filers into compliance with applicable ethics laws and regulations and to avoid conflicts of interest with their Government positions. Appointees are to certify, with documentation to OGE, that such agreements have been satisfied within 90 days of their Senate confirmation (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#Anchor-Ethic-61434). “Program Review Division” The Program Review Division conducts on-site ethics program reviews of headquarters and regional offices to determine whether an agency has an effective ethics program tailored to its mission. The reviews are accomplished in accordance with detailed review guidelines (PDF HTML) and are scheduled in advance as part of an annual program plan. The guidelines provide a step-by-step approach to examining each of the ethics program elements at an agency. Tips on preparing for an annual ethics program review and for administering a well-run ethics program have been developed by PRD (PDF - HTML). The annual program plan sets forth which agency reviews will be conducted during the year. The plan lists headquarters offices in Washington, DC and various offices and military facilities in the regions. After establishing the commencement date of an ethics program review with the agency's ethics official, a confirmation letter will be prepared and sent to the designated agency ethics official along with a checklist of ethics materials (PDF HTML) (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#Anchor-Ethic-61434). State Legislators’ Attempt at Using Ethics Commissions as an Enforcement Mechanism Although some states have comprehensive ethics law and Ethics Commissions (ECs), they still are overwhelmed with a cadre of employee misconduct issues. The use of ECs is not uncommon in the United States and aboard. ECs are usually established after there has been some major scandal in government (Mackey, 2003). The EC have been the punitive response to wide spread scandal in government (Burke and Benson, 1989). ECs were highlighted during corruption issues in the Progressive Movement and New Deal (Smith, 2003). States continued to uses ECs throughout the 1960s and 1970s (Lewis, 1991; Burke and Benson, 1989). The ECs during the 1970s focused on specific acts of corruption and advancing the idea of reform in government through and ethical environment.
10
According to COGEL (1993, 1999), States enacted ethics legislation to improve the climate of state government during the late 1970s and 1980s. They have been given full autonomy from the executive branch of government. The ECs have the authority to recommend and enforced policy changes within state government. Employees of the ECs have subpoena and investigator powers to compel people to cooperation with an inquiry. This type of authority is necessary for ECs to be free standing and independent because they must operate in a highly charged political environment that is drowned in the organization’s culture (Seebode, 1993). The Kentucky legislature’s first attempt at creating an Ethics Board (EB) in 1993 was used a national model around the country. Only a few Legislators and their staffers understood the actual legislation. After a period, the legislators did realized how detailed this act was and made attempts to weaken it. The political climate to ease the power of the EB allowed elected officials to advance the idea that if citizens filed a complaint and made it known to the public, the complaint would be dismissed. Over time the law began to marginalize (Mackey, 2003). The commission in ten years only issued three written opinions (Smith, 2003). The ten-year birthday of the Kentucky EB model has allowed for some reflection by the General Assembly on just how effective it has been. These lessons are far reaching as the country watched the review of this primary model (Mackey). The ethics laws must not be too broad or complex for the commission to spend a lot of time investigating people and/or their organizations for violations of the stature that may have been caused by a misunderstanding in the law. THE ETHICAL AND MORAL REFORM IN PUBLIC SERVICE A Renewed Interest in Public Service Ethics According to Howard (2001), the concern over ethics in the United States Government has been on the decline since the 1960s. The instillation of a Civil Service System in the Progressive Era of the late 1880s and the 1900s has had some affect on eliminating the strong influence that the spoils systems (of 11
the “Big Political Machine”) used to appoint political hacks to government jobs because of their party loyalty (Goss, 2003). The Civil Service rules allowed individuals to be appointed to government positions based on technical competency and other relevant criteria.
Over time, this personnel system expended
throughout all levels of government and provided a level of accountability in public service. The system was founded in the belief that serving in government was an honor and privilege for those who were qualified in all aspects and who answered the “call to duty.” they are off-duty (Johnson, 2001). However, the CIA and other intelligence agencies’ handling of the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Vietnam War and Watergate backlash reunited legislative efforts to deal with a seemingly out-of-control executive branch of government. Congress placed restrictions on the activities of the executive branch of government. Balogun (2003) said that the Watergate scandal diluted the belief that the government had developed ethical ground. The Failed Punitive Practices of the Past According to Segal (2002), the traditional way public agencies have dealt with the questions of ethics has been through the old, failed practices of tighter inspection, increased regulatory activity, internal reviews, restructuring, and performance-based audits. The primary research in the area of organizational corruption supports the belief that those who violated the accepted normal behavior have assumed that accountability mechanisms can control. Adequate restrictions will help managers to enforce rules and help employees to follow them has been the practical application of this concept. The unintended sequence has been a flurry of audit type initiatives and the fostering of the deterrence-based aspects of the Criminal Justice System as a further commitment to these ideas. More scandals tend to produce greater oversight. However, misconduct perhaps is not all the product of the lack of or bad internal policy (Segal, 2002), but because of a climate that accepts, fosters, and supports misbehavior (Johnson, 2001, 2003b). Johnson (2001, 2003b) and Johnson and Cox (2005) have told us that a hidden roadblock to reform is culture, which drives the value system of an organization. 12
Simply put, a deviant culture can encourage employees to disregard all or some rules to satisfy a certain objective (Segal, 2002).
Both managers and employees share the burden of creating a deviant
environment within their organization Segal, 2002). An Attempt at Ethics through a Business Model Approach There is a new resurgence in ensuring how government conducts business on sound ethical and morally grounds to ensure that the public is not harmed (Maesschalck, 2004). Norris (1999) noted that the resurgence in ethics is due to a changing world in which trust in government is seen as key restoring the overall trust in society. The international upheaval over some of the behavior of corporations and their executives has spilled over into America (see Edelman, 1960, 1964). In the late 1980s it has been the Savings and Loan Crisis, the 1990s brought us the wall scandal with Michael Milliken. In 2002 Enron has emerged as the biggest fraud against America public. The Miami and Providence cases and the Enron, WorldCom, and others have instituted a usually quiet electorate. However, the deep and devastating suffering that working Americans have endured brings forth the notion that a shift in focus is needed (Menzel with Carson, 1999; Petrick and Quinn, 1997). The government’s practice of allowing the business world to self-regulate is quickly eroding (see Edelman, 1960, 1964). The nation cries foul and the Congress has responded with special legislation that personally holds accountable the CEOs of corporations regarding their company’s financial statement. Still, the effort is focus on the old deterrence through punishment concept instead of looking at the moral defect of the environment in which the person must work (O’ Brien, 2004). PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION’S CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVING GOVERNMENT The moral foundation for ethics in the United States has come about because of the efforts of academics in the newly formed field of public administration. The field of public administration has achieved transformation for government operations (Wise, 2002). The New Public Management (NPM) attempts to deal with questions of conduct through a global looking glass that covers the full spectrum: 13
economic, instructional, political, and ideological shifts (Box, et. al. 2001). Scholars have revealed that governments have taken a menu perspective as they pick and choose from a medley of corrective measures (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). This cafeteria-style method has produced evidence of countries’ ability to transform the culture and attitudes of its country, government, and public employees (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). NPM has been the driving force behind reshaping the major reform changes to move towards efficiency and the market-based process (Wise, 2002). The concept remains the same but there are differences from country to country (Evans, 2001). NPM has prodded the academic community to conduct empirical research in this area since the very early 1990s. NPM takes a rational values approach that draws on many types of academic traditions (Rosenbloom, 2001). No one group can claim ownership of the construct (Stark, 2002). Opponent of NPM claims that it embraces the radical principles of a representative democracy and cast aside the traditional concepts (Box et. al, 2001; Stark, 2002). The wholesale acceptance of NPM’s style changes may have made unclear the documented practice of public administration. The argument has been that NPM has given too much tribute to the idealistic perspective as the roadmap to change and discriminating against the developed of this field (Wise, 2004). NPM’s business like approach to government reform is viewed as a threat to the steering idea of public administration (Box et. al, 2001). Ironically, Rosenbloom (2001) believes that NPM's core ideas can be rooted back in the developing days of the field. ETHICS TRAINING The Reasoning for Ethics Training According to Berman and West (2004), ethics training is an integral part of effective and efficient government operation. Ethics training helps the employees and their organization to clearly focus on their understanding and their ability to apply it when and where necessary rules and regulation when they are 14
applicable. It should help to reduce chance and control or prevent future problem is government operations. Ethics is the main course in any training program that establishes the responsiveness and proficiency of people that face many complex issues in their occupations. The adoption of ethical codes of conduct and a review of how well managers abide by these rules is important (West et. al. 1998). Teaching Ethics It is also important to provide the right training environment so that those who are skeptical will not search for reason not to participate and that those who are willing to engage in the training do not become disfranchised. Effective training must be associated with issues that the student has direct insight about (West and Berman, 2004). Assisting learners in understanding and transforming the knowledge of what conduct is acceptable demands a different approach from what LeClair and Farrell (2000) regard as learning through memory, reciting, and exploring case studies.
However, students need practical
experience to be able to understand the concept and then transform it into a real world situation. Calling on their professional experiences during ethics instructions should generate this integration of theory and applicability (West and Berman 2004). It is important to note that follow up training many times means the students are seasoned adults. The subject of ethics can be presented as a separate and stand alone course or integrated into other training criterion. The instruction covers basic issues and then chooses the specific topics relating to his or audience (West and Berman, 2004). Payne (1996) says that ethics can be talk to employees with the objective of teaching them to recognize what is ethical and be conscious of how it is ethical. The responsibility of ethics training is to convince the employees that just realizing something is not right is not enough; rather, recognizing why and how, and dealing with the culpability in association with the conduct. The actual methods of teaching ethics are thought in a “high” and “low” road approach (Paine, 1994). The low road involves efforts to instill to employees not to engage in actions that may cast a cloud 15
of doubt over the organization. The high road (or “aspirational”) helps employees to recognize the issues and to search for an appropriate end. Additional steps to increase an open dialogue and responsibility may be initiated to further promote the concept of what an ethical work environment is involving rank and file management. Organizations use ethics to attain one of many objectives in this area. The commingling of ethics training with other ethics objectives can be seen as an executive priority in the areas of hiring and promoting and a reassurance that low-level managers interact with employees to help clarify issues. Employees tend to take their cue from executives regarding the seriousness of ethics training. Training itself reinforces the organization’s commitment and reminds new and experienced personnel of the work rules of conduct. Therefore, ethics should be a part of the overall culture of an organization and be reinforced throughout an integrated training process that fosters ethics at every turn (West and Berman, 2004). Ethics training can come in many forms. Sometimes it is offered only occasionally while other times it is a consistent part of the training platform. Some public agencies treat the subject like core course work in an academic discipline; starting employees of with overview training and then advancing to higher levels each time building on what they had been taught previously. However, employee participation maybe strictly voluntary or mandatory depending on how the law is written (West and Berman, 2004). PUBLIC SECTOR ETHICS TRAINING United States Office of Government Ethics The United States Office of Ethics delivers training to executive branch employees in the following manner: “Annual Government Ethics Conference” OGE hosts an annual Government Ethics Conference update executive branch ethics officials on the most recent developments in the Government Ethics area and to provide opportunities to enhance their understanding of the ethics statutes, regulations and policies. Officials attend and participate in a mix of general sessions and smaller concurrent sessions. These sessions provide executives officials an opportunity to meet and discuss common issues and problems and to share
16
resolutions and solutions (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#AnchorAnnua-15076). “Program Services Division” The Program Services Division provides dedicated liaison and program support services to each executive branch department and agency ethics office through the Desk Officer Program. Each department and agency is assigned an OGE Desk Officer who is responsible for providing assistance in maintaining effective ethics programs and providing advice and guidance on the Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch” (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#Anchor-Annua-15076). The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) The ICMA provides training to city and county governments in an effort to promote professionalism. The following is the mission of the ICMA: •
“ICMA's mission is to create excellence in local government by developing and fostering professional local government management worldwide” (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259).
The “Core Beliefs” are: “During ICMA's strategic planning process in 2000, ICMA members reaffirmed the Association's core beliefs. ICMA members believe in: • • • • • •
Representative democracy The highest standards of honesty and integrity in local governance as expressed in the ICMA Code of Ethics The value of professional management as an integral component of effective local government The council-manager form of government as the preferred form The value of international Association Ensuring diversity in local government and in the Association” (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259).
The ICNA carries out its mission by the following services: •
“ICMA offers a wide range of services to its members and the local government community. The Association is an internationally recognized publisher of information resources ranging from textbooks and survey data to topic-specific newsletters and epublications. ICMA provides technical assistance to local governments in emerging democracies, helping them to develop professional practices and ethical, transparent governments. ICMA assists local governments in the United States through programs such as the Center for Performance Measurement, the Smart Growth Network, and other
17
programs that focus on specific areas of need” (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259). Ethics Training: This year’s ICMA annual Conference will offer a workshop on “Building a Culture of Ethical Behavior in Your Organization” (http://icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=500&p=1). Additionally, the organization offers ethics training, guidance to questions posed by local government employees concerning potential conflicts, and publications that provide the theoretical understanding of ethics year round. “Promoting an Ethical Culture” •
“Promoting an ethical culture is a key leadership responsibility. Equity, transparency, honor, integrity, commitment, and stewardship are standards for excellence in democratic local governance. ICMA promotes ethical conduct through its Code of Ethics, training for local governments, publications on ethics issues, technical assistance, and advice to members. For more information about ICMA’s Code of Ethics, its guidelines and enforcement process, and current issues and advice facing local government professionals” (http://icma.org/main/topic.asp?tpid=25&hsid=1).
Law Enforcement Ethics The International Association of Chiefs of Police Ethics training is a part of the major objective of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to ensure ethical behavior of law enforcement officers. The IACP conducts ethics sessions on an annual basis as normal training hosted by law enforcement agencies. The respective departments provide the input that is used to establish the criterion for the training workshops. The course involves “Value Centered Leadership: A Workshop on Ethics, Values, and Integrity.” This training will be offered eight times this year in seven states around the country. At the end of this training session, participants are asked to fill out a questionnaire about the training and did it fulfill its goals. The data is reviewed and the comments are sued to improve the next training session (Haynes, 2005). The IACP provides ethics training at its annual conference (Higginbotham, 2005, Haynes, 2005). The IACP takes the position that ethics should be apart of the discussion no matter what the topic
18
happens to be. To ensure that training is of quality and includes an ethics component through the conference, the workshop proposals go through a peer evolution process. A point system is use to value the applications for presentation and the Education and Training Committee selects those proposals that ensure overall quality. Additionally, every member of the IACP has a chance to voice his or her opinion about the content of the annual meeting (Higginbotham). The IACP also has specific workshops for law enforcement officials. The 2000 Conference dealt with ethics as a compromise; department’s ethical image; discipline of officers over questions of integrity; risk taking by police chief in matters of ethics. The 2001 Conference looked at principle-based leadership and the importance of ethics; building an ethical culture in law enforcement; misplace loyalty through walking the ethical tightrope; the work ethic. The 2002 Conference featured topics as such ethics for police legal advisors; how police departments become corrupt; ethics in police psychological services. The selection committee chose not to provide a designated workshop on ethics. However, in 2004, the Conference focused on ethical character driven leadership; handling deceitful officers; ethical perspectives of police legal advisors; officers using deception to do their job. This year’s conference workshops
are
still
being
evaluated
and
are
not
available
at
this
time
(http://www.theiacpconference.org/at_a_glance.cfm). ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE The concept of culture derives from the field of Anthropology and has been defined in several traditions. Culture has a tremendous effect on our lives. It assists us in shaping the communities’ value system. When the term culture is paired with the word organization, the theoretical idea of organizational culture is born (Shafritz & Ott, 1992; Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). Organizational culture contains groups of people who are socially intertwined to each other (Becker, 1992; Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). The organizational culture programs the minds of people (Johnson, 2001, 2003b. The most knowable method of managing individuals is through a culture of control (Van 19
Maanen, 1978; Johnson, 2001; Johnson, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). Control is obtained and maintained through a clear line of communication during training that tells people how they should act (Johnson, 2001). A few scholars believe that a variety of cultures exist within an organization (Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). Organizations generally shape subcultures that help certain members of a group develop their own unique characteristics (Cochran & Bromley, 2003; Johnson & Gill, 1993; Johnson, 2001, 2003b; Johnson & Cox, 2005). The issue of ethics has no borders; it has been a global effort for most governments around the world. Government officials have struggled with all types of methods not only to instill ethical behavior in public service, but in society (Brady, 2003; van Blijswijk, Brreukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). This has prompted some European nations to call for an across-the-board policy to deal with the concern over ethics in government. The public’s perception of how government works is actually the reality (van Blijswijk, Breukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). The concept of “me” first and everyone else second has provided a worrisome environment, given the influx of a multi-ethnic population in certain parts of Europe. Therefore, an effort to define the role of the public employee becomes a top priority (van Blijswijk, van Breukelen, and Slupm, 2002). This attitude has been easily placed into the American Culture, is evident in what the Founding Fathers did to our federal government hierarchy to avoid the potential abuse of individuals with power. Developing countries around the world also share ethical concerns over public officials. These concerns can be more problematic because of the existence of multiple cultures within a country can cause unethical standards when the group in power is replaced by the new group’s leadership (van Blijswijk, Breukelen, Franklin, Raadschelders, & Slump, 2004). Another role assumed by government as it expands is that of policing the private sector. Global environment links the workings of government with society as a whole and; therefore, government first must be seen as being above reproach (Maesschalck, 2004/5; 20
Norris, 1999; see Edelman, 1960, 1964; Menzel with Carson, 1999; Petrick and Quinn, 1997). The business sector will no longer be allowed to totally police itself (see Edelman, 1960, 1964). The Congress has put in place expanded legislation to personally hold CEOs directly accountable for the data report in the annual financial statement. Congress’ effort supports the notion that old deterrence-based punishment concept is alive and well (O’ Brien, 2004). The reform of government comes after the installation of a civil service system that eliminated the spoils system of the “Big Political Machine.” The crusade over communism, the Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal has provided the evidence that the Congress had been searching to begin the debate on reforming the executive branch of the federal government (Howard, 2001; Goss, 2003; Balogun, 2003). The legislative branch of government plays a major role in not only how it operates but also the executive branch. Wilson (1887) has noted that you must first determine exactly what it is data you want government to do. The bureaucrat is held accountable to the elective officials and he or she is held liable to the electorate (Finer, 1941). Mainzer (1973) has said that the best way to establish control of government is through oversight initiatives. These activities produce reports with data that the legislative body can analyzed and critique for comments (Johnson and Levin, 1991). Theses types of oversight activities have been one the many reasons that the 1978 Inspectors General act (as amended in 1988, 1991). The Act placed a statutory IG in every major department and agencies under the executive branch of government (Johnson, 2005a). These mandates are punitive in nature because they are very popular they often produce data of the number of arrests, indictments, convictions and administrative actions alleged against a government official (Johnson, 2005a; Kearns, 1996; Ott, Boonyarak, Dicke, 2001). The establishments of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and ECs have been away that the federal and state governments have been another attempted to gain power over the government operations. The OGE and ECs appear to be an integral part of the bureaucracy; however, they are stand21
alone from the executive branch. They also and have the legal authority to initiative and complete audits and investigations and to compile reports from their efforts and submit them to the legislator. They also provide guidance for policies for potential ethical issues posed by employees under their jurisdiction (Mackey, 2003: Lewis, 1991, COGEL, 1993, 1998; Smith, 2003). Unfortunately, the OGE and ECs have played into the same role as the IG community; they are interested in providing clear evidence of how well their organizations are doing. The computations of arrests and conviction stats can provide the legislative oversight with evidence that the watchdog system is effective. The field of public administration has made a contribution to the reform government. The academic discipline has advocated the use of the rational approach of efficiency and market-base initiatives. A global approach has been used to implement the concept of accountability and productivity. A worldwide style allows the international community choices their organizational needs (Box et. al. 2001; Wise, 2002). As we have learned, the government and the business sector operate differently. Wilson (1989) and Zupan (1991) have told us that business and government are different due to their goals and objectives. Johnson (2003a) has specifically looked at implying the business approach to the small but important segment of government: law enforcement. He finds the same problem in policing as Wilson (1989) and Zupan (1991) have found in government in general. Policing requires a lot of observation by officers. Under an accountability system, the officer watching what is occurring in the street might be misconstrued as unproductive activities under the business model periscope. It would be difficult to accurately apply the take assess whether observation by the officer is an effective law enforcement tool under the criteria used in the assessment model of the private sector (see Police Accountability: A European Perspective). Therefore, the business like approach is a threat to how the public sector operates (Box et. al, 2001).
22
According to West and Berman (2004), ethics training is an integral part of an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency. Ethics training helps the employees understand their organization’s mission and the matter in which they help carry it out. The adoption of codes of conduct will help managers to understand their responsibilities of providing employees with clear objectives in this area (West et. al. 1998). Ethics is best taught in an atmosphere conducive for learning adults. The student should have some idea about the topic in order for them to understand the concepts and apply them to real-world situations (LeClair and Farrell, 2000). Ethics can be taught as a stand-alone course or integrated into the entire training curriculum. Ethics can be taught often or occasionally. Paine has said that ethics can be taught through aspirations or through a programming process in which employees are given information without any chance to give feedback (West and Berman, 2004). Ethics training is a part of the major objective of the International IACP and the ICMA to promote ethical behavior in government. The IACP conducts ethics sessions on an annual basis that is hosted by receiving law enforcement agency. The participating department provides the input that is used to establish the criterion for the training workshops. The course of study involves “Value Centered Leadership: A Workshop on Ethics, Values, and Integrity.” The schedule provides training eight times a year in seven states around the country. At the end of this training session, participants are asked to fill out a questionnaire to assess the training. The IACP provides ethics training at its annual conference (Higginbotham, 2005; Haynes, 2005). The IACP takes the position that ethics should be apart of the discussion no matter what the topic happens to be. To ensure that training is of quality and includes an ethics component through the conference, the workshop proposals go through a peer evolution process. A point system is use to value the applications for presentation and the Education and Training
23
Committee selects those proposals that ensure overall quality. Additionally, every member of the IACP has a chance to voice his or her opinion about the content of the annual meeting (Higginbotham, 2005). The IACP also has specific workshops for law enforcement officials. There has been ethics training at every Conference from 2000 through 2004 (Higginbotham, 2005; Haynes, 2005). Perhaps if the cultural roadblocks were removed, the successfulness of ethics training has on government employees could be properly measured and assessed for true oversight purposes. West and Berman (2004) have uncovered some key factors in their empirical study of this issue. Training provides an opportunity for an interactive environment in the workplace. Responsive and performance helps to elevate employees’ productivity. There are different thoughts about the depth and breadth of training sessions. Ethics training has a better overall effectiveness when it is tailored around specific issues, and is endorsed, advanced, fostered, and supported by management. The content of the subject matter is valued-driven in that it provides employees with an awareness of how to act. Still, more research in this area is needed.
The organizations zest to pursue it and the
effectiveness of training sessions are key areas that academics can explore. Research to find out if managers give enough attention to an even–tempered approach with the appropriate funds to help react an environment for an ethical workforce; thereby, raising the level of confidence of the entire organization of the public. CONCLUSION We have learned that misconduct in government is just not a law enforcement issue. The concern over public integrity is a part of the entire government bureaucracy. Chief executives throughout the world continue to deal with perplexing question of ethics in government and in society. The government executives are consistently challenged to overcome the cultural (sometimes multiple) and sub cultural barriers that seemingly neutralize and, in some cases, defeat their efforts.
24
The United States struggle with an ethical government is unique to the rest of the world. While some countries have changed their culture depending upon the leadership, the United Sates has steadfastly held on to the basis ideas and freedom and independence for its citizens. The Forefathers took it upon themselves to construct a government that would stand the “test of time,” by allowing people to live as freely as possible without hurting the civil union. Fear and intimidation is not the answer to brining ethics to the public sector. Training that makes the employee aware of a potential ethic issue is a good start. The classroom instruction must also provide the theoretical bases for why something is right and wrong. However, until the organizational roadblocks are removed the effectiveness of these types of training programs cannot be assessed for their overall worth. The problem, therefore, will continue to be a global one.
25
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Balogun, M.J. (2003). Causative and Enabling Factors in Public Integrity: A Focus on Leadership, Institutions, and Character Formation. Public Integrity, 5(2). Pp. 127 -147. Berman, E.M., West, J.P., & Cava, A. (1994). Ethics in Management in Municipal Government and Large Firms: Exploring Similarities and Differences. Administration and Society, 26. pp. 185 –203. Bekke, H.A.G.M., & vander Meer, eds. (2000). Civil service Systems in Western Europe. Cheltenham, UK: EdwardElgar. Box, R.C., Marshall, G.S., Reed, B.J., & Reed, C. (2001). New Public Management and Sustentative Democracy. Public administration Review, 61(5). Pp. 608 – 619. Brady, F.N. (2003). Public Integrity, 63(5). Pp. 525 – 534. Bruce, W.M. (1996). Codes of ethics and Codes of Conduct: Perceived Contribution to the Practice of Ethics in Local Government. Public Inegrity Annual, 1. pp. 23 –29. Burke, F. & Benson, G. (1989). State Ethics Commission in Conflicts. Journal State Government, 62(50. pp.195 – 1998. Cooper, T. L. (1991). An Ethic of Citizenship for Public Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Council of Government Ethics Laws (COGEL). (1998). Ethical Updates. Providence, RI: Council on State Government Ethics. Council of Government Ethics Laws (COGEL). (1993). Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Lobby Law. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. Cox, RW, lll, (2002). An Interview on Police Culture and Ethics. University of Akron, Ohio. April. DeLeon, L. (1993). As Plain As 1, 2, 3 …and 4. Ethics and Organization Structure. Administrative Society, 25(3). Pp.293 – 316. Denhart, R.B. (2000). The Political Theory of Reinvention. Public administration Review, 60(2). Pp. 89 – 97 . Edelman, M. (1960). Symbols and Political Quiescence. American Political Science Review, 54(3). Pp. 695 – 704. Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
26
Evans, K.G. (2001). More Democracy, Not Less, in Twenty-First-Century Governance: Dewey’s Ethics and the New Public Management. Public Integrity, 3(2). Pp. 262 -276. Felkens, G. T. 1984. “Attitudes of Police Officers Toward Their Professional Ethics.” Journal of Criminal Justice Ethics 12:211–220. Finer, H. (1941). Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government. Public administration Review, 1. pp. 335 – 350. Friedrich, C.J. (1940). Public policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibilities. Public Policy, 1. pp. 3 – 24. Goss, R. P. (2003). What Ethical Conduct Expectations Do Legislators Have for the Career Bureaucracy? Public Integrity, 5(2). 93 – 112. Haynes, L. (2005). Internet Interview of the IACP Education and Training Manager. Alexandria, VA. Higginbotham, C. (2005). Interview Regarding Conference Curriculum of the IACP. Alexandria, VA. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration Review, 69(1). Pp. 3 – 19. Howard, P.K. (2001). The Lost art of Drawing the Line: How Fairness Went Too Far. New York: Random House. Hunter, R. D. 1999. “Officer Opinions on Police Misconduct.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15, no. 2:155–170. Hyde, A.C. (1992). Government Budgeting, Theory, Process and Politics: The Dimensions. Inspectors General Act of 1978 PL 95 – 452.. Johnson, T.A. (2005a). Thoughts on his service as a Special Agent for a Federal and State Inspector General: Lincoln: Lincoln University, PA. Johnson, T.A. “(March/April 2005b). “A Defining Search for Ethics in Law Enforcement.” Ethics Today, 7(3), 8, 13 - 24. Johnson, TA, & Cox, RW, lll. (2005). Police Ethics: Organizational Implications. Public Integrity, 7(1). pp.67 – 79. Johnson, T.A. (2003a, January/February). “Police Accountability: A European Perspective.” ACJS Today, 26(1). 7 – 9 pp. Johnson, T.A. (2003b, May/June). “The Good and Bad Factors of Police Culture and Subculture.” ACJS Today, 26(2), 7 – 10 pp.
27
Johnson, T. A. (2001). “An Investigation to Determine If the Culture and Subculture of Policing Stymie the Profession’s Attempt to Reform.” Doctoral Dissertation. Wayne Huizenga Graduate School, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Johnson, R.W., & Lewin, A.Y. (1991). Management and accountability Models of Public Service Performance. In Public Management: the Essential Readings, edited by J. Steven Ott, Albert C. Hyde, & Jay M. Shafritz, pp. 188 – 206. Chicago: Lyceum Books. Nelson- Hall. Katz, David, and Robert L. Kahn. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Kay, S. (1999). “Police Corruption and Officer Training Issues.” Journal of California Law Enforcement 33, no. 4:1–2. Keller, R.T. (1992). “Transformational Leadership and the Performance of Research and Development Project Groups.” Journal of Management 18:489–551. Kearns, K.P. (1996). Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Non-Profit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. King, J.D. (1994). Political Culture, Registration Laws, and Voter Turnout among the American States. Publius, 24(4). Pp. 115 –128. La palombara, J. (1971). Alternative Strategies for Developing Administrative Capabilities in Emerging Nations. In Frontiers of Developing Administration, edited by Fred Riggs, pp.172 – 1777. Durham: Duke University Press. LeClair, D. T., & Ferell, L. (2000). Innovations in Experimental Business Ethics Training. Journal of Business Ethics, 23. pp. 313 -322. Lewis, C.W. (1991). The Ethics Challenges in the Public Service. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Learner, D. (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. Mass: MIT Press. Lindorff, D. (1999). “Police Culture.” Nation 268, no. 20:20. Maesschalack, J. (2004/5). Approaches to Ethics Management in the Public Sector. Public Integrity, 5(7). Pp.21 –41. Mackey, E.S. (2003). Dismantling the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Law: “Well Short of Exercising Good Judgment.” Public Integrity, 5(2). Pp. 149 -158. Mainzer, L.C. (1973). Political bureaucracy. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman. Menzel, D.C., & Carson, K.J. (1999). A review and assessment of Empirical research on Public administration Ethics: Implications for Scholars and managers. Public Integrity, 1(3). Pp. 239 –264.
28
Miller, S. (1996). “Corruption for a Cause.” IPA Review 49, no. 1:17–20. Newburn, T. (1997). Understanding and Preventing Police Corruption. London: Home Office. Norris, P. (1999). Critical Citizens: global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Brien, J. (2004). Ethics, Probity, and the Changing Governance of Wall Street. Public Integrity, 5(7). Pp.43 – 56 OECD. (1996). Ethics in the Public Service: Current Issues and Practices. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD. (2000). Trust in Government: Ethics Measures in OCD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Ott, J.S., Boonyarak, P., & Dicke, L.A. (2001). Public sector Reform, and Moral and Ethical Accountability. Public integrity 3(20. pp. 277 – 289. Paine, L.S. (1994). Managing for Organizational; Integrity. Harvard Business Review, March – April. Pp. 106 117. Payne, S.L. (1996). Ethical Skills Development as an Imperative for Emancipatory Practice. Systems Practice, 9(4). Pp. 307 –316. Petrick, J.A. & Quinn, J. F. (1997). Management Ethics: Integrity at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pollitt , C, & Bouckaert, B. (2000). Public Management Reform: A comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prenzler, T., and C. Ronken. (2001). “Police Integrity Testing in Australia.” International Journal of Policy and Practice 1, no. 3:319–342. Reiman, J. (1997). “The Scope and Limits of Police Ethics.” Criminal Justice Ethics 16:41–45. Riggs, F.W. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries: Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rosenbloom, D.H. (2001). History Lessons of Reinventors. Public Administration Review, 53(6). Pp. 161 – 165. Seebode, T.F. (1993). Ethics Laws of the States as Policy Outcomes: The Recursive path Model Revisited. PhD. Dissertation (unpublished), University of Alabama. Segal, L. (2002). Roadblocks I Reforming Corrupt agencies: The Case of the New York City Schools Custodians. Public Integrity, 62(4). Pp. 445 – 460.
29
Smith, R.W. (2003). Enforcement or Ethical Capacity: Considering the Role of State Ethics Commissions at the Millennium. Public Integrity, 63(3). pp. 83 – 295. Stark, A. (2002). What is the New public Management? Journal of Public Administration research and Theory, 12 (1). Pp. 137 –151. Tice, J.T., Perkins, K. (2002). The Faces of Social Policy: A Strengths Perspective. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Uchida, C. D. (1989). “The Development of the American Police: A Historical Overview.” In Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, edited by R. Dunham and G. Alpert, pp. 14–30. Prospect Heights, Ohio: Waveland Press. Umiker, W. (1999). “Organizational Culture: The Role of Management and Supervisors.” Health Care Supervisor 17, no. 4:22–27. Van Blijswijk , J.A.M., Breukelen, R.C.J., Franklin, A.L., Raadschelders, J.C.N., & Slump, P. (2004). Beyond Ethical Codes: The Management of Integrity in the Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration. Public Integrity, 64(6). Pp. 718 – 727. Van Blijswijk, J.A.M, van Breukelen, C.J., & Slump, P. (2002). From Integrity Management to Management of Integrity. Paper Presented at the 63rd National Conference of the American society for Public Administration, March 23 – 26, Pheonix, AZ. Van der Meer, F.M. & Raadschelders. (2003). Mal-Administration in the Netherlands in the 19th and 20th Centuries. In The History of Corruption in Central Government, March 23 – 26, Phoenix, AZ. Van Maanen, J. 1978. “People Processing: Strategies of Organizational Socialization.” Organizational Dynamics 7, no. 1:18–36. Wells, D., & Schminke, M. (2001). Ethical Development and Human Resources Training: An Integrative Framework. Human Resources Management Review, 11. pp.135 – 158. West, J.P., & Berman, E.M. (2004). Ethics training in U.S. Cities. Public Integrity, 6(3). Pp. 189 –206. West, J. (1998). “Frontiers in Ethics Training.” Public Management 80, no. 6:4–9. West, J.P., & Berman, E.M. (2004). Ethics Training in U.S. Cities: Content, Pedagogy, and Impact. Public Integrity, 6(3). pp. 189- 206. West, J.P. et. al. (1998). Frontiers of Ethics Training. Public Management Review, 80(6). pp. 4 –9. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books. Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2. p. 221.
30
Wise, LR. (2002). Public Management reform: Competing Drivers of Change. Public Integrity, 62(5). pp. 555 – 567. Zupan, M. (1991). “Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.” Journal of Economic Literature 29, no. 2:606–607. URL SITES The United States Office of Government Ethics’ Homepage (OGE) http://www.usoge.gov/home.html OGE WEBSITE HOMEPAGE: BACKGROUND (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/backgrnd_mission.html) MISSION (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/backgrnd_mission.html) ETHICS AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#Anchor-Ethic-61434) PROGRAM REVIEW DIVISION (http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/agcy_prg_serv.html#Anchor-Ethic-61434) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCAITION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE http://www.theiacp.org INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION http://www.icma.org/main/sc.asp?t=0 MISSION (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259) ”CORE BELIEFS” (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259). SERVICES (http://www.icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=60&hsid=1&ssid1=17&ssid2=22&ssid3=259). CONFERENCE ETHICS TRAIINING (http://icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=500&p=1). PROMOTING AN “ETHICAL CULTURE” THROUGH YEAR ROUND TRAINING (http://icma.org/main/topic.asp?tpid=25&hsid=1).
31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Raymond W. Cox, III, of the University of Akron for his continuous guidance in my academic career. Many of the themes explored in this paper are from conversations that Raymond and I have had about how government can be effective at its mission. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Terrance A. Johnson, C.B.M., C.F.E., is a member of the Lincoln University faculty and teaches criminal justice courses. He received his D.P.A. from the Wayne Huizenga Graduate School at Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Johnson researches and writes on contemporary law enforcement issues, with an emphasis on police misconduct. He is a member of peer-review editorial boards for three criminal justice journals. Johnson began his teaching career after a twenty-year career in policing, law enforcement, and government investigations, and corporate security. He retired as a senior special investigator for the Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Raymond W. Cox III is professor and chair of the Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies at the University of Akron. He received his Ph.D. in public administration and policy from Virginia Tech and is the author of more thirty academic and professional publications, including two books. His recent work has focused on issues of management theory and discretion in decision-making. Dr. Cox has devoted more than sixteen years to government service, including four as chief of staff to the lieutenant Governor of New Mexico and five as a program director at the National Science Foundation to complement fifteen years as a faculty member.
32
