Week 15 Indianapolis Code of Ethics Discussion Hello I have ethics questions based on cases. Please I need APA style with 2 single space pages. Answer the

Week 15 Indianapolis Code of Ethics Discussion Hello I have ethics questions based on cases. Please I need APA style with 2 single space pages. Answer the questions based on the cases that I attached. V509 Administrative Ethics in the Public Sector
Lead Paint
The local Women’s Shelter provides emergency housing for women with children who have
nowhere else to go, either due to domestic violence or poverty.
The lease for the current location was signed by the Executive Director, Kay, after review by the
Board. Kay retained the Board Chair’s husband, Bob, to serve as the realtor for purposes of
finding the property and negotiating the lease. She was under no obligation to do so, but
assumed the Board Chair would appreciate that decision. Bob told Kay that he asked, “lots of
questions” about the property. Bob recommended the lease to Kay who brought it up to the
Board asking that the lease be signed because it is the “perfect” location and the monthly rent is
“too good to be true.”
Two months into the lease, after relocating the agency office, and furnishing the new location,
Kay has advised the Board that the new location has significant levels of lead based paint. It is
well-documented that this paint damages the brain and nervous system, causes behavioral and
learning problems, reproductive problems, memory problems, and muscle and joint paint. The
dangers are worse for young children who often ingest the peeling paint.
It turns out that there were past inspections of the building by state agencies which may have
detected lead levels in excess of those deemed safe.
The Board is extremely concerned. The local media just did a series of articles praising the work
of the Women’s Shelter so this could not have come at a worse time. Board members are calling
one another and e-mailing each other to express their extreme displeasure with the situation.
Some of the Board want Kay fired. Some are angry about the work of the realtor. Some are
angry that the seller misrepresented the condition of the building. There is also concern that with
all the calling around it will only be a matter of time before the media begins asking questions.
The Board Chair sent an e-mail blaming Kay. She has scheduled an emergency meeting to seek
her termination.
1
Emails raise ‘pay to play’ concerns
Chris Sikich, chris.sikich@indystar.com9:58 a.m. EDT April 7, 2016
Ethical concerns are being raised after an email exchange between Hamilton County and St.
Joseph County officials mentioned both campaign contributions and a county contract in the same
discussion.
Hamilton County Commissioner Mark Heirbrandt is bidding to receive a contract with St. Joseph
County through his employer, Ameresco, a company that seeks to reduce costs for commercial and
governmental entities through energy-efficiency plans.
In several emails exchanged between January and March, Heirbrandt asks St. Joseph
County Commissioner Deborah Fleming about the status of the contract while also offering to help
her raise money for her re-election campaign. Both are Republicans.
Fleming says the two topics, though sometimes intermingled within the same paragraph of emails,
were separate. She says the potential campaign contributions would not have influenced any
decisions in St. Joseph County government.
“I don’t think there is a problem with two commissioners discussing plans for campaigns,” she said.
A statement from the Heirbrandt campaign called the situation a “blatant attempt to mischaracterize
the truth.”
Neither the St. Joseph County Election Board nor the county prosecutor’s office is considering action
at this point.
The emails were obtained by St. Joseph County Democrat Chairman Jason Critchlow. He said legal
advisers told him the conversation was legal because no money was directly solicited or exchanged
for a service. Although he is not demanding an investigation, he said the emails certainly
suggest “pay to play” politics. He called for her to return any contributions she had received from
Ameresco and to recuse herself from a committee studying which energy consultant to hire.
He said soliciting campaign contributions from a prospective vendor during the course of a public
bidding process is “troubling and at minimum gives an appearance of impropriety.”
Preprimary campaign finance reports are due April 15, but Fleming says no contributions were made
directly or indirectly by Heirbrandt or Ameresco this year. Heirbrandt did make a $250 donation last
September that Fleming said was from a golf outing.
Julia Vaughn, director of government-watchdog group Common Cause Indiana, called the
conversation crass after reviewing the emails on behalf of IndyStar. But like Critchlow, she believes
they fall short of breaking the law.
“Clearly this illustrates how rampant pay to play is in local government,” she said. “There is a very
small universe of people who contribute to local campaigns, and way too often they are the same
people doing business with local government. It just clouds decisions. They should be having these
conversations separately.”
The emails begin Jan. 9, when Heirbrandt informs Fleming of a meeting he had to discuss Ameresco
with her fellow St. Joseph County Commissioner Andy Kostielney and County Council
President Rafael Morton. In the next paragraph he intermingles the work Ameresco will perform
while asking about contributing to her campaign.
“I have been in South Bend most of the week going through your buildings with my engineers as well
as meetings with other county personnel in preparation for our proposal delivery on the 19th,” he
wrote. “I also learned that you may have some opposition in your upcoming election? I can provide
some assistance, please let me know?”
She replies the next day: “Thanks for the update and thinking of me. I am glad you had a good
meeting with Raphael and Andy. Anything you can do to help is greatly appreciated. 😉 Stay in
touch.”
Heirbrandt checks back in Jan. 17 to discuss the fundraising. He asks if she has thought about how
much cash she needs and said he knew several vendors who would be willing to help.
She replies that day: “We think I will need at least $100,000-$120,000 to run my ideal campaign.
This will include mailers, TV and radio ads, billboards, etc. Thanks for any help you can give!”
On Jan. 24, he says: “I have spoken to several vendors that feel they can help you. I will talk to you
sometime on Tuesday to discuss.”
She replied “Thanks!” Jan. 25. The next and last email on the chain is March 21, when Heirbrandt
checks in on the status of the county’s decision to hire an energy consultant.
“I thought I would touch base to see if any progress has been made recently? Thanks and talk to you
soon!”
Fleming is on a bipartisan committee working with consultant John Burke to recommend a company
to receive the energy contract. Ameresco, Honeywell, Johnson Controls and Performance Services
have placed bids.
Morton, the St. Joseph County Council president, said a value hasn’t been placed on the energy
contract. He said it likely would be significant because it will cover several county buildings, including
the courthouse, juvenile center and jail. A Democrat, he said Fleming has not pushed for Ameresco
to receive that contract to his knowledge.
“She’s been involved in some of the meetings, and I can say she has not pushed for Ameresco,” he
said.
Fleming told IndyStar that she and Heirbrandt first talked at length during a conference for county
commissioners in December in Indianapolis. At that meeting she said that Heirbrandt offered to give
her friendly advice and to help her with her first campaign this year.
She was appointed to fill a vacancy on the county commissioners in 2014. While this is her first term
in office, she is not inexperienced. She previously served as the county’s GOP chairwoman.
She said Heirbrandt simply was following through on his offer to help while he was emailing her
about county business.
“This is the first time I have run a campaign for commissioner, and he offered to help,” she said.
“That had nothing to do with the contract.”
Heirbrandt also is facing re-election this year.
His campaign committee released a statement that reads: “This is a ridiculous accusation and a
blatant attempt to mischaracterize the truth. It is completely appropriate and common for a county
commissioner to contribute $250 to a fellow county commissioner. Mark Heirbrandt won’t let
baseless political attacks take the focus away from jobs, economic development and improving
infrastructure for the people of Hamilton County.”
Vaughn said the state should consider more stringent campaign finance laws. The Indiana Senate
passed a bill this year she supported that would have barred active vendors such as Ameresco from
making a contribution to the campaign of a decision maker. The bill died in the House.
Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at (317) 444-6036. Follow him on Twitter:
@ChrisSikich and at Facebook/chris.sikich.
Indy council approves ethics reforms
Brian Eason, brian.eason@indystar.com10:44 p.m. EDT April 11, 2016
The City-County Council on Monday night approved a proposal to overhaul a city ethics ordinance
that critics say has proved toothless and ineffective since it took effect in 2010.
The new rules, first outlined on the campaign trail by Mayor Joe Hogsett, enact new restrictions on
lobbyists and tougher penalties for noncompliance, including a so-called nuclear option — a
potential lifetime ban for repeat offenders.
The proposal passed 17-7, overcoming a handful of defections from Democrats.
“The bipartisan passage of this ethics overhaul affirms that we must have a government that works
for the people, not the other way around,” Hogsett said in a statement. “Critically, it also reiterates a
message I sent as federal prosecutor — those who violate the public trust deserve to be punished
with the full force of law.”
When the existing ethics ordinance was approved in 2009, it set up the city’s first lobbyist registry,
which, among other things, required lobbyists to file annual disclosures. But in part because of lax
reporting requirements, Chief of Staff Thomas Cook has said that in the six years it has been in
effect, no enforcement actions have been taken and few gifts have been disclosed.
Perhaps the most glaring loophole: Lobbyists today must report the value of a gift but not the person
who received it.
Another problem: The existing ordinance lists certain gifts a lobbyist must report, such as food,
entertainment and travel expenses. But the specificity of the ordinance meant lobbyists could
legally omit gifts that didn’t fall into specific categories.
The proposal passed Monday requires lobbyists to report the value and recipient of all gifts worth
$25 or more. Repeat violators would be subject to lifetime bans for themselves and the firms they
represent.
The ordinance also:
• Establishes a one-year cooling-off period in which city-county employees couldn’t take a job with
companies that they oversaw or did business with in their government role.
• Prohibits existing employees who have a second job from doing contract work with the city agency
that they work for.
• Creates a “Disclose Indy” website to serve as a one-stop shop for contracts, ethics filings,
campaign finance reports, crime stats, budgets and other public documents. Many of these are
available online now but are scattered across the city website.
Call IndyStar reporter Brian Eason at (317) 444-6129. Follow him on Twitter:
@brianeason.
Questions for Week 15
Indianapolis Code of Ethics
Please evaluate the fix to the Indianapolis Code of Ethics. You’re encouraged to do additional
research beyond the article posted on Blackboard. Specifically:
What problems does the Code appear to be aimed to solve? Does it seem to solve those
problems?
Would you categorize the fixes to the code aimed to make it more of code of conduct or a code
of ethics? Why?
Would you have recommended making these changes? Why or why not?
“Pay to Play” or “Lead Paint”
Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model discussed in Week 14, analyze one of these two
cases and recommend a course of action going forward. For “Pay to Play” determine what
Deborah Fleming ought to do. For “Lead Paint” determine what a Board Member ought to
do/encourage the board to do. Of course, you should explain why this is the best course of
action.
Your “Fix”
Please take some time before class on Wednesday and prepare a brief account of a fix to an
administrative issue in the public sector.
This can be either from personal experience (please anonymize when describing) or something
you’ve learned about from elsewhere.
It can be something which has been addressed and you evaluate the “fix”.
It can be something which has not been addressed and you think there is a recommendable fix.
Please write out the basic features of the issue, and the fix/suggested fix, and your
evaluation/justification of the fix.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment