Answer #2 is recommended for several reasons. The potential of political embarrassment for an elected commissioner calls for caution and discretion–regardless of whether the commissioner exerted influence or not. Because of the potential seriousness of the allegations, the manager should be armed with the facts before meeting with the director. If the letter makes it to the newspaper it really doesn’t matter if your request was in writing or oral because the HR director will confirm your action. Also, asking the HR director to quietly review the matter puts a blanket on your request rather then having a paper trail. This preserves the manager’s options.
Correct! This answer is recommended for several reasons. The potential of political embarrassment for an elected commissioner calls for caution and discretion–regardless of whether the commissioner exerted influence or not. Because of the potential seriousness of the allegations, the manager should be armed with the facts before meeting with the director. If the letter makes it to the newspaper it really doesn’t matter if your request was in writing or oral because the HR director will confirm your action. Also, asking the HR director to quietly review the matter puts a blanket on your request rather then having a paper trail. This preserves the manager’s options.
Answer #2 is recommended for several reasons. The potential of political embarrassment for an elected commissioner calls for caution and discretion–regardless of whether the commissioner exerted influence or not. Because of the potential seriousness of the allegations, the manager should be armed with the facts before meeting with the director. If the letter makes it to the newspaper it really doesn’t matter if your request was in writing or oral because the HR director will confirm your action. Also, asking the HR director to quietly review the matter puts a blanket on your request rather then having a paper trail. This preserves the manager’s options.
Question 2: After being advised by the human resource director that there appeared to be some truth to the allegations what would you do?
Answer #3 is recommended. You really want to know all of it. Was the director trying to curry favor with the commissioner, was he pressured or threatened, or was it an innocent judgment? Depending on the answer to those questions, why was the qualified minority candidate bypassed? Was it prejudicial or an honest judgment? Do NOT interview the candidates! That would be too much personal involvement by the manager, internally, within a department. It would be a bad management decision and takes away the manager’s options.
Answer #3 is recommended. You really want to know all of it. Was the director trying to curry favor with the commissioner, was he pressured or threatened, or was it an innocent judgment? Depending on the answer to those questions, why was the qualified minority candidate bypassed? Was it prejudicial or an honest judgment? Do NOT interview the candidates! That would be too much personal involvement by the manager, internally, within a department. It would be a bad management decision and takes away the manager’s options.
Correct! You really want to know all of it. Was the director trying to curry favor with the commissioner, was he pressured or threatened, or was it an innocent judgment? Depending on the answer to those questions, why was the qualified minority candidate bypassed? Was it prejudicial or an honest judgment? Do NOT interview the candidates! That would be too much personal involvement by the manager, internally, within a department. It would be a bad management decision and takes away the manager’s options.
Answer #3 is recommended. You really want to know all of it. Was the director trying to curry favor with the commissioner, was he pressured or threatened, or was it an innocent judgment? Depending on the answer to those questions, why was the qualified minority candidate bypassed? Was it prejudicial or an honest judgment? Do NOT interview the candidates! That would be too much personal involvement by the manager, internally, within a department. It would be a bad management decision and takes away the manager’s options.
Question 3: After meeting with the director and determining that the selection was questionable, particularly in view of the more qualified minority candidate, what would you do?
Answer #2 is recommended. Unless you are going to fire the director then let him deal with the problem and correct the mistake no matter who was at fault. The world and the anonymous letter writer will know that the transgression was corrected. The miscue happened on the director’s watch. Do not sit down with the commissioner at this time. We don’t know from the facts presented whether the commissioner was part of the wrong doing or not. If he was, the manager has a range of action. A violation of the charter provision dealing with interference in the internal administration could result in a complaint with the state attorney and potentially forfeiture of office on the one extreme, or, if no pressure was exerted the matter is moot. If there was wrongdoing and the commissioner is vindictive the anonymous letter clearly shows that the manager protected the commissioner from severe adverse publicity. Vindictiveness may signal the time for a meeting with the commissioner but not before. This case raises several serious ethical, managerial and judgmental challenges for the city manager. Think about the tenet: discrimination, cronyism, political sensitivities, and sound ethical management are all potentially at play in this case.
Correct! Unless you are going to fire the director then let him deal with the problem and correct the mistake no matter who was at fault. The world and the anonymous letter writer will know that the transgression was corrected. The miscue happened on the director’s watch. Do not sit down with the commissioner at this time. We don’t know from the facts presented whether the commissioner was part of the wrong doing or not. If he was, the manager has a range of action. A violation of the charter provision dealing with interference in the internal administration could result in a complaint with the state attorney and potentially forfeiture of office on the one extreme, or, if no pressure was exerted the matter is moot. If there was wrongdoing and the commissioner is vindictive the anonymous letter clearly shows that the manager protected the commissioner from severe adverse publicity. Vindictiveness may signal the time for a meeting with the commissioner but not before. This case raises several serious ethical, managerial and judgmental challenges for the city manager. Think about the tenet: discrimination, cronyism, political sensitivities, and sound ethical management are all potentially at play in this case.
Answer #2 is recommended. Unless you are going to fire the director then let him deal with the problem and correct the mistake no matter who was at fault. The world and the anonymous letter writer will know that the transgression was corrected. The miscue happened on the director’s watch. Do not sit down with the commissioner at this time. We don’t know from the facts presented whether the commissioner was part of the wrong doing or not. If he was, the manager has a range of action. A violation of the charter provision dealing with interference in the internal administration could result in a complaint with the state attorney and potentially forfeiture of office on the one extreme, or, if no pressure was exerted the matter is moot. If there was wrongdoing and the commissioner is vindictive the anonymous letter clearly shows that the manager protected the commissioner from severe adverse publicity. Vindictiveness may signal the time for a meeting with the commissioner but not before. This case raises several serious ethical, managerial and judgmental challenges for the city manager. Think about the tenet: discrimination, cronyism, political sensitivities, and sound ethical management are all potentially at play in this case.
