3. There was nothing wrong with Ward providing a letter of introduction if he was genuine and had interests of the organization at heart. However, the problem only arose when he sent an introduction letter on behalf of a friend. This indicates a conflict of interest where it can be seen that he wants to provide some favors to his friend. This is likely to compromise the integrity of the whole committee. Ward should not represent personal interests but should act in a professional and impartial way. The criteria for selection should be based on experience and integrity of the company not background information characterized by personal ties.
4. The CEO’s friend did nothing improper in this case. As long as they have the requisite experience to perform the task, they are also entitled to be considered for selection besides the fact that they know the CEO. As long as the principles of fairness and impartiality are taken into consideration, there is nothing wrong with the CEO’s friend being considered for the job.
5. The Ethics Oversight Committee did not operate effectively in as far as their mandate was concerned. They acted in solidarity while at the same time blocking investigations that would have unearthed certain unethical practices taking place within the committee. The committee’s major role is to ensure that ethical practices are upheld every time not to take a leading role in concealing some of the ethical practices taking place within the organization.
6. The ethics committee is not doing a great job in trying to balance the ethical breaches and the interests of the organization. By virtue of refusing to take part in the meeting that has been meant to resolve some of the issues that had emerged, it can be seen that the committee is not fully serving its purpose. This only created interests among other stakeholders since they believe that the