gan’s new government was sooner or later covered by public administrators who demonstrated silent disagreement from the dissatisfaction they allegedly got from the public organizations they were attached to although they did not have the audacity to openly air their concerns but instead chose to go against the will of their seniors.
One such incident was with a public administrator known as John Spencer appointed in the Environment Protection Agency consisting of Washington, Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon State. Essentially, he began his ethical issues by making announcement that he had intended to purchase EPA membership in the Chamber of Commerce using taxpayers’ money. According to O’Leary (2013), Spence was aware that the use of taxpayers’ money was unethical since it was not permitted in the federal guidelines. Nevertheless, he would later ignore and drop the idea after another officer raised the issue and argued that it was meant to raise serious questions pertaining to conflict of interest.
Another ethical issue related to Spencer was the audacity to take on some illegal and private trips that were at the expense of the public and not meant to benefit the government. Furthermore, some of these trips were allegedly affiliated to his previous work station, Alaska. Similarly, he is also alleged to have demanded to be assigned a personal driver who would serve him throughout notwithstanding the fact that he needed the EPA office building modified without any approval from the General Services Administration as mandated by federal law (O’Leary, 2013).
It is worth noting that the career employees are obligated to report any cases of ethical issues in reference to the federal law. Preston, Sampford & Connors (2002) argues that, they receive motivation from their seniors and their personal traits. The use of guerilla tactics is denoted as the best solution in pinning down administrators who do not follow code of ethics because instead of