ETHICS AN ISSUE FOR THE ’90s

ETHICS AN ISSUE FOR THE ’90s

Hardly a day goes by that ethics involving some aspect of government is not highlighted in the news. Ethics in government, consequently, has become an important issue for the 1990s. The fallout from the nation’s growing concern about the behavior of public officials has encompassed the fire service as well. It is evidenced in citizens’ questions about fire department policies and decisions. More and more communities are checking the moral and ethical backgrounds of candidates for chief and other executive positions within local fire departments. Fire officials can lose their jobs for infractions such as accepting a gift or awarding a bid for equipment in an inappropriate manner.

Localities have been responding to the public’s growing concern about the ethics of the individuals who run their government. The city of Farmington Hills, Michigan, adopted a written code of ethics on December 11, 1989. Its stated purpose is to “enhance the faith of the people and the integrity and impartiality of all officials and employees of the city.” The code stipulates that “each individual official, employee, or adviser of government must help to earn, and must honor that trust by his | her| own integrity and conduct in all official duties and actions.” The code is intended to be preventative and punitive.

ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

Ethics deals with questions involving what is good or bad and right or wrong and what constitutes moral duty and obligation. Ethical behavior sometimes becomes difficult to define and even harder to measure. Our world is much too complex to be governed by a value system that simply says something is always right or always wrong. As our department’s code reminds us, “Ideals do not always fit perfectly with reality, and ethical standards do not always provide automatic solutions to difficult questions.”

Most decisions are not made in a vacuum and involve a number of factors that must be weighed before deciding on a course of action. These factors introduce “shades of gray” that many times are interpreted differently: internally by the individual dealing with the situation and externally by those observing his/her actions. These gray areas sometimes involve two or more legitimate points of view or have no clear right or wrong answers. These kinds of issues need to be carefully examined, and all competing interests must be identified and evaluated and the department/municipality’s ethical standards must be applied. When an issue is particularly complex and difficult to resolve using these procedures, advice should lie obtained from higher authorities. In Farmington Hills, elected and appointed officials would direct the matter to the mayor, members of the city council, or a city attorney.

Stealing, for example, is an act considered illegal, immoral, and unethical. But what if someone chose to steal to provide food for a small child who would have starved without it? Does that circumstance change how the act should be judged?

What about the value of a stolen commodity? Does it alter the moral impact of stealing it? Almost everyone, for example, would agree that stealing is wrong, yet they routinely steal in the work environment. The theft could be in the form of making a personal phone call or an unauthorized copy on the copy machine, or it could be in the form of a pencil that makes its way home or work time lost to an extended lunch hour or an unauthorized break —examples that few might consider stealing. It, of course, is very difficult to find someone who is so pure that he/she has never done one of these things. The usual practice is to rationalize the actions: “I deserve it; my boss is taking advantage of me.” “My boss can afford it.” Once the act of stealing is “legitimized,” new boundaries of “acceptable theft” are established and eventually are reflected in the ethics and value system. This example shows how we constantly change and evaluate our personal code of ethics and, as a result, the codes of the organizations within which we operate.

Influences. Ethics are acquired and reinforced throughout life, making it extremely difficult to reconstruct totally an individual’s belief system. Values are instilled and influenced by our family, schools, and churches and by the other individuals and institutions that are part of our lives.

The code of ethics that governs our department stresses personal integrity. Individuals, the code points out, will find that their integrity codes have “surprising similarities,” a phenomenon it attributes to “people generally having a good sense of ethics …usually instilled by our parents and nourished by society.” Components of integrity noted in the code are fairness, honesty, evenhandedness, sincerity, and a constant system of values even in the face of shifting social standards and lifestyles. Integrity is not, according to the Farmington Hills code, “just a checklist of prohibited behavior” but a proactive attitude that makes good things happen.

The present ethics crisis, therefore, is easier to understand when we reflect on how the institutions in our society have changed just within the past couple of decades. The prevalence of divorce and the resultant increase in single-parent families and multifamily households greatly have altered “normal” family life. According to the 1990 census, only 26.3 percent of Americans live in traditional families.

Schools, too, have changed dramatically. Violence, guns, drugs, and teen pregnancy now are common school concerns. A recent study found that more than 70 percent of high school students believe it is acceptable to cheat when nonessential subjects are involved. Imagine the impact it would have on the fire service if more than 70 percent of its entry level workforce believed that they could cheat when they did not perceive something to be important.

In the religion arena, the most publicized examples of ethical disintegration have been set by evangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker, although scandals and allegations have tarnished traditional institutionalized religions as well.

Future workforce. These societal changes, of course, affect and are reflected in the fire service. Add to them the changes anticipated in the makeup of the population from which fire departments will draw members in the future, and the need for mechanisms that will promote ethical behavior becomes even more obvious. Projections based on the government study Workforce 2000 indicate that the fire service will see a drastic change in the composition of its workforce. According to the study, females will constitute about 61 percent and other minorities about 29 percent of future labor force entrants. “Traditional” native white males, it is estimated, will represent only 15 percent of the entrants. The diversity of the individuals making up fire departments in the future will be much greater.

ETHICS AND THE DEPARTMENT

Leaders—the chiefs in many departments—are responsible for establishing and maintaining a climate conducive to the department operating according to its ethical code. They must be open and encourage discussions of situations involving ethical questions that might develop during the course of a workday. Chiefs and other officers must explain their reasons for taking specific positions. If they know that taking a certain action will raise ethical questions, they should not take it. Any benefit to be gained from taking such an action (money, goods, prestige) is not worth risking the loss of their jobs or lowering the department’s morale.

Sometimes fire department officials are asked to do something they consider unethical. A tactic that sometimes works in this situation is to restate the request to the individual making it. As an example, if an elected official is asking that the department look the other way when a certain company violates a fire code, the fire officer’s retort could be, “Do you want me to disregard the fire code of this community?” I have found that many times people seeking such favors will back oft when this is done, since they generally do not want to be that bold; often, they later deny that they made the request. Should the individual persist, the officer could ask for the request in writing. Doing this, however, sometimes—depending on the officers job and the legal protection available —can put the officer in a precarious position. In some cases, officers must decide how complying with a request will violate their personal beliefs and value systems. One situation might involve a burntout bulb and another, chained doors. They must decide when to stand on principle —even if it could mean losing their jobs.

Understanding the impact ethical behavior can have on a fire department helps prevent costly misunderstandings and also helps officers gain insight into employee behavior and motivation.

Department leaders also must create an environment that makes it possible for department members to bring their mistakes out in the open instead of trying to hide them. Having a written policy helps to create this atmosphere and make members aware of the kinds of behaviors expected of them in specific situations, the repercussions that can occur when they do not meet expectations, and the manner in which the department/municipality will handle infractions.

In addition to establishing written behavioral codes, departments should provide mechanisms for formal and informal discussions of controversial issues. This is not as easy to do as it may seem. Unfortunately, one of the reasons some issues are not discussed is that if the opinions are not “politically correct,” the individuals holding them may incur serious repercussions. The problem seems to intensify as one climbs up the management ladder. The challenge for department leaders is to create an atmosphere that does not inhibit frank discussion or intimidate individuals so that they will not express their views.

TRAINING

Fostering ethics within the department is enhanced by providing aw areness training for all employees. The training can be clone in-house, but it generally is easier to have someone outside the organization present the material. If internal personnel do it, they may leave themselves open to criticism, which can be minimized, however, if the program is well-structured and the members focus on the issues involved and not the individual explaining them.

City of Farmington Hills, Michigan Code of Ethics for Government Service

Any person in government service should

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
8. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

A general discussion of ethics and the prevailing municipality and/or department ethics codes or policies should be included. Actual scenarios designed to help members apply the appropriate ethical principles to specific situations should follow the discussion. Scenario examples include responding to requests for political favors, accepting gifts from vendors and the public, blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, determining whether to continue working on an obviously dead patient, and conducting personal business while on duty.

Finding examples is easy; we face ethical issues every day and may not realize it. Take as an example being late for work: Two department members are 20 minutes late for work. One member, a full-time career firefighter, responded the night before as a volunteer to a fire that lasted until 2 a m., finally fell asleep at 5 a m., and dozed a bit after the alarm clock went off. The other member has a history of being late and has an attitude that says, “So what?”

GUIDELINES

Following are examples of other issues and the guidelines for dealing with them that are contained in the City of Farmington Hills code of ethics:

• Gifts. “No city official/employee shall solicit, accept, or receive directly or indirectly any gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing, or promise or in any other form under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence him or her in the performance of official duties or is intended as a reward for any official action. The size of the gift is immaterial.

“City employees cannot accept gifts of value, favors, or preferential treatment such as discounts from vendors, firms, or individuals regulated by or doing business with the city. Violators are subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Inexpensive advertising gifts, such as pens, pencils, key rings, calendars, or other small items such as boxes of candy, nuts, and plants that are shared by an entire office and/or enjoyed by the public can be accepted.”

Frequent payment for an employee’s meals, refreshments, and entertainment is to be avoided. Officials and employees should “try to stay even” by picking up the check an appropriate number of times or “going dutch.”

• City-sponsored events and activities. “No employee or city organization should solicit or accept any kind of support for these events from individuals or firms that do business with the city or want to.”

Open discussion of the situations is the most important part of ethicsawareness training. Members’ discussions help to establish the ethical boundaries within which all organizations are expected to operate.

In addition to the formal training, departments should encourage informal discussion of ethical issues as they arise. The best tactic for dealing with issues involving ethics, again, is openness. Hidden agendas and an air of secrecy breed suspicions of unethical behavior. Dealing with issues in the open may not always eliminate suspicion, but it promotes a framework built on trust, integrity, fairness, and tolerance of individual differences. The reality is that most times the perception of the facts involved is more important than the facts themselves when it comes to resolving conflict or creating impressions.

Abiding by an ethical code and fostering the environment that can make it work, in addition to derailing ethical dilemmas, promotes unity and understanding within the department and enhances fire service management.