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

If in that location could be anyaffair in the Ameri shadower authorities that the reality has long been admiring, it would always be its military strength. Besides its technology, exalted product standards, its money, transportation and educational facilities, the origination has been get wording up at America beca engagement of its excellence in the field war and battle. It would seem for the delay of the world that Uncle Sams cast offn offers a smooth-sailing life that passel of different colors race and strive to come over.The big header to dig into is this Is America free of decadence and abuse? The adjudicate to the suspicion is a big no. In this composition, we ordain translate to look into the good standards of the federal Government for the purpose of having a benchmark in our evaluation of the good deviations deep down the organization. Specific altogethery, we will pass judgment to evaluate how the surgical incision of Defense go through the process of procurance and will try to pinpoint where the flaw in such process is, resulting to caper and abuse. This paper has included actual court cases where the segment of Defense was involved.Through these processes, we will be able to prove that no matter how powerful the policies and laws of the Federal Government, the powerful America can non temper its entire people and rule out them from rife personal interestingnesss and public give. At the end of this paper, the author hopes to create the readers convinced that Federal laws and policies still stimulate flaws and that should be taken into consideration the soonest possible in order for the American terra firma and the rest of the world restore its fading trust and confidence over the people merchantman their security.President George Bush during his term, probably ensuring the public of their trust towards the disposal, issued a illuminate order that would serve as guideline for strict compliance of solely told for ce directly serving the public. Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990, entitled Principles of honest Conduct for Government Officers and Employees orders each government employee to avoid, prevent and help ferret out fraud and adhere to ethical standards at all ms and situations.The introductory section of the EO12731 provides catchy ethical principles which prevent each employee to hold fiscal interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty and engage in financial transactions using non-public government information or allow the indelicate use of such information to further any private interest (section 101-b and c). Subsections of the order to a fault require each employee to act will overflowing honesty in their duties and most measurablely they atomic number 18 not allowed to use public routine for private gain.The Federal Government, based on its laws and policies, has been guileless and clear as to guiding its public servants to the proper, e thical appearance they should intro all the time. So why are at that place still unconditioned cases and accusations that start been polluting the air of the public servants? What is more frustrating to know is the point that even in the Department of Defense, many employees and management force out has been prove to be contri neverthelessing to such corruption.The fact of unethical behavior living in the Federal government is not just an outside card but is as well being know by those working inside the organization. In a press release issued by the Ethics vision Center, it turned out that 52% of the Federal employees are aware and are witnesses of at least one type of misbehavior among their colleagues in the earlier class. What is more is that only 30% of federal workers surveyed believe their organizations have well-implemented morals and compliance programs and that only one in 10 said there is a strong ethical culture in their federal piece of work (ERC 2008) .Almost one quarter of public sector employees identifies their work environments as tributary to misconduct places where there is strong pressure to compromise standards, where situations call 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 postage that there might be some social function inside the Federal government that attracts employees to cut back ethical considerations and to prefer personal interests over public trust.One thing obvious thing is money. The Federal government, even though have particular(a) financial resources, has probably been the most liquid source of kickbacks for the bad apples in the place. It is worth noting that the U. S. government is the largest consumer of prime contracts (Lander, Gerald et. al. 2008). Using this mere information, we can all the way conclude that there is enough money for the bad apples on hand. Moreover, it would be very 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 wine 86%, twice as fast as other discretionary spending, which rose 43% between 2000 and 2005. Moreover, such spending composed of 40 cents per clam of discretionary spending (Ibid). The figures are quite more than attractive and conducive for the bad apples to abuse the trust and authorities vested on them by the public. scorn the fact that trust is held as the most important asset of the government, there is one thing that even the most powerful government cannot control greed.It is a human broker that the procurement agencies of the government intentionally or unintentionally tolerate. The uncontrollable fact of human greed is even recognized by the Department of Defense. As the spokesman of the Pentagonen, Dan Howard has noted, The acquisition system is sound but there is no system on the view of this earth that completely obviates the human factor greed. And that is why we have policing systems (The New York Times, June 26, 1988). The trust hardened by the public over the Department of Defense continue to disappear 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 co-occurrence Center, resulted in the indictment of 28 individuals and companies on various fraud charges. such procurement transactions involved textile and apparel industry which have government contracts on uniforms, tents, boots for the armed forces. Here then is the chance for us to ask these questions What is the purpose of having ethical standards in the federal government? ar 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 specially to the Department of Defense, it is un samely that these educated people came short of understanding the ethical conceits. In fact, the departments publication, Armed Forces Comptroller, the author recognizes the fact that their personnel understand the theory of ethics. The author even stressed that most of them are required to attend some form of mandatory ethics provision (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, let us try to look into these then core concepts. The author stressed that these core concepts mull 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 and straightforward, regardless of sort 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 aimheaded but also what is right. Relative to this, abuse of power and betrayal of trust still include acts or attempts of hiding the truth. If the Department of Defense personnel cl premature understand this concept, there should have been no causality to keep 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 belongings accurate records and end tasks to the extent of ones capacity and ability. This means that coming to the office late, going 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 l avish ingestion of such resources. What is frustrating is that this concept is being disregarded by postgraduate ranking employees of the department at a considerably higher(prenominal) 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 lower level of organization. However, it would be a different thing to know that cheating is even more practiced at the higher level of management who are expected to be the practice of law 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 pursue 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 d to the ethics of honesty is the concept of impartiality which the DOD defines as doing the right thing the first time and both time. In an observation by one of the members of the Special Investigations Unit of the atomic number 25 Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in St. Paul, Special Agent herds grass 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 culpable drug cases which obviously involve a vast sum of money. fetching OMalleys exact words, a tremendous amount of illegitimate cash 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, supplies 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 primary 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 particularly in the procurement social occasion of the department of Defense, transaction processes involving money are very much controllable. In fact, the DOD has sound policies and effects expressed in the Defense Federal skill Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Procedures, Guidance, an d Information (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 (AT&L) before including in a department/agency or component supplement, or any other assure regulation document such as a policy earn or clause book, any policy, procedure, clause, or form that has a authoritative effect 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 stage 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 suggest that the agency should thoroughly conduct interviews, psychological tests, and all-embracing 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 goodly preventive measures that are being done 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 heighten the integrity of the defenders of the American securi ty. As one observer have noted, it is important that high standards 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 guess 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 vindicate neither it will justify ones act of corruption. aberration to ethical standards is a clear betrayal of trust and a recognise in the name of the person, if he even cares enough for it.A new-fangled study established that fast-talking, outgoing, assertive, and self-confident risk takers represent the best candidates for covert work. While this may come as no surprise, the study also c oncluded that these personality traits are often the same ones predisposing an officer to corruption and psychological distress (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. Police managers essential view their hiring standards as components of managing for ethics (Wells, S. A. 1993, p. 67). Strict regard to employee selection is a must although diversity 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).