Whistle-Blowing and the Ante of Unethical Conduct

According to a May 24, 2007 New York Times editorial, the Commerce Department inspector general, charged with protecting whistle-blowers, took vengeance on two subordinates who questioned his expense accounts. He reassigned his top deputy and his counsel to peripheral jobs, when they refused to sign off on expensive trips and office renovations. This happened at the federal level, but it is important to show how fragile whistle-blowing is.

No one, not mayors, not city managers, not even inspectors general, likes to have subordinates stand up to them or say something when they're doing something wrong. This only gets worse when the subordinate goes elsewhere with information, whether it be an inspector general, a prosecutor, an attorney general, or the press.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

This is an example of how closely tied to personal feelings conflicts of interest are. You don't have to own property or have a business to have interests that conflict. All you need is pride, a reputation to be concerned about, and a desire to do things that aren't quite right, from taking expensive and unnecessary trips, to taking sick days when you aren't sick.

When someone finds out, there is immediately a conflict between your personal interest in not having your conduct discovered or publicized, and the public interest in having all government activities public and proper. When the whistle is blown on you, and you retaliate or try to cover up, the ante of unethical conduct goes up.

Officials who participate in unethical conduct have an enormous interest in keeping that conduct under wraps. Nothing, no issue, no project, not even re-election is more important than this. That's why whistle-blowers need so much protection, and why anonymous tips can be so important. This is dangerous territory, and subordinates need help getting through the minefield, or they'll stay right where they are.