Ethics

Susan Whitehead serves on the City Planning Commission. The city is planning to build a new subway system and is accepting bids on the proposal. Susans brother-in-law, Jerry who owns the Custom Transportation Co., has submitted the lowest bid for the system. The Worldwide Transportation C o. has submitted a slightly higher bid for the job. Susan knows that Jerry could complete the job for the estimated amount, but she also knows that if Jerry gets and completes this project he will have enough money to sell his company and quit working. Susan is concerned that Custom Transportations subsequent management might not be as easy to work with if revisions need to be made on the subway after its completion. She is torn as to whether she should tell the city about the potential changes in Custom Transportations management. If the city knew about the instability of Custom Transportation, it might prefer to give the contract to Worldwide Transportation whose bid was higher than Custom Transportations bid by only a small amount. Does Susan have an ethical obligation to disclose the information about Jerry to the City Planning Commission

Introduction and situational analysis
The case problem at hand is the issue of ethics involving conflict of interests and disclosure of critical information. The case of Susan Whitehead of the City Planning Commission (CPC) case is a highly sensitive issue and concern that is likely to seriously affect her in her decision processes at work. Public sector rHerecontracts with significant budgetary allocations, as in the planned projects of the City Planning Commission are likely to become sources of ethical dilemmas. Susan Whitehead is confronted with such dilemma, thus specific performance on contracts require awareness of transparency, good governance and disclosure requirements to preempt or prevent any issue that can be construed as a form of misconduct, impropriety or acts of nepotism arising out of kinship and relationship, professional affiliations or related interest thereby giving rise to a conflict of interest.

Professionals, who suddenly find themselves in the middle of ethical issues, are constrained to forego perks and privileges to project a semblance or a genuine appearance of integrity at work to manifest and articulate good governance practices. Here, the need for proper conduct is demanded. Thus, public officials are to exude and provide living examples and models of exemplary behavior. This behavior is likely to showcase discipline and order. Clearly the practice of professionalism insulates one against possible breach of ethical practices. For Susan Whitehead, it is a call for proper conduct even in the absence of rules that is, acting lawful, ethical even when no one is looking. Further, the essence of the practice of ethics is its universal applicability  reversibility.

The Ethical Dilemma        
Susan Whitehead is faced with an ethical dilemma as the city plans to build a new subway system. Here, the ethical dilemma is a form of conflict of interest and Jerry, who happens to be her brother-in-law, owns the company, Custom Transportation Company that offered the lowest bid for the subway project.  Ethics dictate that either Jerry or Susan inhibit themselves in participating in the bidding processesJerry as a bidder and Susan as a member of the city commission. From all perspectives, Susan and Jerry must exercise caution in their official moves as vested interest aim to scrutinize every possible means to insure fair bidding processes.

Here, the dilemma appears Should Jerry win the contract, the results will cast doubts on the integrity of the bidding processes. Jerry will likely be mistakenly identified as having received tips from Susan in terms of any condition leading to the awarding of the bid Susan Whitehead, on the other hand, will likely be construed as having provided some form of assistance or hint to Jerry to prepare his bid and thus, is likely to upstage other bidders. Besides, both Susan and Jerry will be presumed as having discussed some sensitive areas of the contract in their private capacities as in-laws. Even the small difference in the contract prices will add some more sensitive issues into the agreement as soon as the relationship is disclosed. In all likelihood, these forms of ethical dilemma are likely going to affect the credibility to the City Planning commission.

Giving false impression is another category of ethical issue prevailing in the case. This takes the form of knowledge of information considered material to the case. Here, the ethical issue is the possibility of Jerrys company, being sold to another entity and the possible difficulty of the new firm tasked to undertake revision work after it is completed. Susans nondisclosure of information is likely to put her in a compromising stance with the city planning office. It is highly probable that changes in its management might be difficult to deal with and the city might bring this issue to Susan and unnecessarily link her to the prospect of actually knowing this possibility of risk even if she never had any influence or knowledge about the issue in the first place.

Susan will not find it easy and comfortable that knowing certain sensitive information about the future of Custom Transportation, she will start having some fits of conscience striking her when this risk actually does happen. Here, one has to be ethically consistent.

This dilemma being confronted by Susan may have to be initially addressed by requiring Jerry and his successor in interest to be legally bound by the contract to honor any form of work revision after any change in ownership. This value of integrity had to be inculcated and sustained on all undertakings.

With this provision installed in all pre-qualified bidders, Susan should feel safe on the issue of relationship should this legal provision is adhered to by all parties. Nevertheless, this ethical dilemma should be disclosed by Susan to the Commission and officially documented as enforceable legal issue. Nonetheless, Susan should feel comfortable with the compensating provisions included, but must not take active frontline role, or inhibit from sensitive participation in deliberations that will equally involve Jerry or his outfit, the Customs Transportation. Here, rationalizations must be avoided. Observers are becoming more mature.    

Stakeholder analysis
In this case, the stakeholders include the following Susan Whitehead as the official from the City Planning Commission who is related to Jerry, one of the bidders and contractors for the subway project Jerry as the point person in the project and who owns the firm, Custom Transportation Company, and is the one likely to win the contract for the construction of the subway project. Here, Jerry becomes affected by the conduct of the project as they are expected to be implementer of the project. The city itself is a stakeholder in this case as this is a sample of a public sector project funded by the city and is expected to be supervised by its people through the offices directly tasked with its implementation and supervision together with the winning contractor, Jerry. The city will definitely be in the line of fire for any unethical disposition here as it is assumed that the government spearheaded the project construction knowing the full details of the participants including making sure that any form of succession or successor-in-interest should be considered in the bidding process.
In addition, the competitor bidder World Transportation Company is similarly a stakeholder in this case because of its legitimate interest in participating in the bidding processes for which it believes it is capable of handling. This stakeholder will be impacted by the potential issue of discovery of the conflict of internet as well as the disclosure issue considering it proposed the next possible winner in the bid and which could have indeed won the contract had Jerry, Susan Whitehead acted in more ethical means to avoid potential problems brought about by this affinity relationship.  Another stakeholder in this case could be the family where Jerry and Susan Whitehead belong, them being related by virtue of affinity.
 
Analysis based on ethical theories        
In the case under consideration, the issue and theory of cultural relativism challenges the ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. The theory propounds that there is no universal truth in ethics only cultural practices and codes that had been handed down over generations and presumed to be the right way.

Here, society believes that the right way is the way the ancestors used and handed the cultural codes down the generations. For them, the traditional way is correct for they contain the authority of the ancestors.

The involvement of the cultural relativism is at the fringes of the practice of entering into contracts despite the factors that are likely to cause future problems of disclosure by Susan Whitehead which are likely to be ignored by some stakeholders. For some, participating in the bidding is considered a right arising from having someone in the corridors of power and any imperfections therein can confidently be resolved by the relationship prevailing. Here integrity is perennially challenged.
         
Teleology, which is looking at consequences as in the most natural way possible thus acting for the greater good can equally be impacted by this case in the form of the outcome of actions and decisions based on reasons for doing such acts. Here, the outcome is important but is subordinated to the truthfulness or wrongfulness of the act or decision. What is more important is that in many ways, this approach can be characterized by the need to determine the consequences of an act. The case fits into the aspect of the consequences of the decisions of Susan Whitehead along the fringes of affinity and how this can be justified under the circumstances which can indeed hardly be made.  But deontology, which is based on the aspect of duties and principles, may likely compel Susan to report the relationship and inhibit herself. Likewise, the aspect of virtue, every stakeholder is expected to discharge their duties and principles in the most virtuous way to avoid future consequences which are relatively unpredictable.  

Using the utilitarian theory, Susan Whitehead is compelled to disclose the ethical demand of the moment as being responsive to the needs of the greater majority for protection and benefit. Possibly, the assumption of the position of virtuousness must indeed compel every stakeholder to work for the common good rather the self called ethical egoism.  

Conclusion and recommendations.          
Using the various ethical theories and considering them as the framework in the case of Susan Whitehead, the mix of approaches to resolve the ethical dilemma is to reconfigure the theories and determine the mix that will help preserve the continuity of practicing ethics every inch of the way in business transactions that compel man to look beyond the acts and minds of man every time and endlessly presume that ethics cannot out the chaotic world in order and systematic with all stakeholders benefitted. All ethical theories support and benefit the stakeholders. Here, Susan Whitehead must disclose all.

Here, the risks of not fairly implementing an action or model must be clearly anticipated. thus, in the case problem, Susan Whitehead and Jerry must talk and appreciate the virtues of ethical behavior against short-term gratification. The aspect of broader benefit accruing to more people will help us understand the rigors of the practice considering they were indeed plenty of benefits but very little utility among stakeholders or that the benefits illustrates the skewness of thinking that benefit that not only a few stakeholders drawn into the fold, but considering others ethics that design its own ethical practice in the most open way possible. For these to be reported and help create an ideal mix of ethical behavior means the relative sacrifice each stakeholder is willing to render to the sake of peace, respect, care, order and progress.        

Thus, the issue and practice of ethics and ethical dilemmas immortal means of perpetuating positive values. To become exemplary, ethics is the ultimate test aimed at imposing and sustaining order and discipline in society perennially confronted with a growing concern for good governance and transparency. Here, Susan is constantly reminded that values are what one says he believes and ethics is on how one actually behaves. This axiom reminds society that ethics is a dynamic discipline for sustaining order and discipline in good governance. The need for ethics demands the need for appropriate behavior and the need for appropriate behavior is demanded by society as an extended enterprise. .  

Here, the risks and uncertainties of an emerging business and interpersonal environments further demand that the pervasive practice of ethics should bring meaning, order and sense in every stage of relationships. Susans ethical predicaments are no exceptions.