Ethical case analysis

"What to Do About Mrs. Carmichael" The Municipal Redevelopment Agency (MRA) is involved in a project in Victoria, one of the older communities in Urbopolis. Because most of the turn-of-the-century housing is in a seriously dilapidated state, the Urbopolis City Council has declared Victoria an appropriate area for redevelopment. You have been appointed assistant project director, with primary responsibility for determining which of the houses should be rehabilitated and which must he demolished. You have a staff that includes two specialists in municipal building codes and housing construction. You have assigned them to conduct on-site inspections of the residences in the first project area and prepare a draft report with their recommendations. They are nearing the completion of their field work; another two or three weeks should do it. Harmon, one of the two specialists, buzzes you on the intercom to say that he and Franklin, the other specialist, need to talk with you as soon as possible. They want to talk about Mrs. Carmichael, who lives in project one; in fact, she has lived there for thirty years. Mrs. Carmichael is now eighty-two years old, her husband is deceased, and her income has been so battered by inflation that it barely meets her basic living expenses. The mortgage has been paid off, but there have been taxes and maintenance costs. Some time ago Mrs. Carmichael began to neglect repairs on her home as her money shrank in value, year by year. "Now," Harmon says, "her house is in pretty bad shape." He sums up the condition of the house by admitting that according to the standards they have been applying elsewhere in the first project area, Mrs. Carmichael's home should be demolished. However, Harmon cannot bring himself to recommend the destruction of the old woman's home. This is his fourth redevelopment project and he has seen it happen before. "Elderly people, whose homes cannot justify rehabilitation loans, are relocated into apartments, or board and care homes, only to lapse into senility and sometimes death." Harmon never felt very good about it before, but he just cannot stand to do it again. He tells you that he knows what the law requires and what the MRA project guidelines specify, but it seems wrong. He argues that "the government has no business treating decent people who have worked hard all their lives as though they were disposable trash." You feel moved by Harmon's concern for Mrs. Carmichael, but you are unsure about what it means for you and the project. It occurs to you that Franklin has said nothing so you ask if he agrees with Harmon. No, Franklin does not agree. He feels as strongly as Harmon but not in the same way. "It is too bad about Mrs. Carmichael, and all the Mrs. Carmichaels who get caught in her predicament, but there is nothing we can do about it," says Franklin. He tells you that the MRA's job is to rehabilitate when it can and demolish when it cannot, and there are laws and rules and standards that must govern those decisions. Franklin insists that you cannot go around making exceptions; you have to be fair with everyone and that means treating everyone equally. There must be no special favors or the entire project will be jeopardized. Everyone will demand an exception and nothing will get done. The only way to deal with this case is to go by the book. "Let the relocation unit find her a satisfactory place to live that's their problem," Franklin maintains. "Our problem is to make a decision about whether to fix up her place or tear it down." He knows that the house is beyond repair according to the standards employed by the MRA for all other similar projects. The tension has been rising between Harmon and Franklin and at this point a heated argument breaks out between the two men. You try to calm their tempers and, as they settle back into their seats, you express appreciation for both men's concerns. You assure them that you respect their judgment and indicate that you would like to give the matter some thought and discuss it again later. Harmon and Franklin thank you for hearing them out and then leave your office. It is not our intention to attempt to resolve the issue of Mrs. Carmichael's house, but to use this case to illustrate some of the concepts just discussed in this chapter and indicate ways of clarifying the situation that will be helpful in arriving at a decision. First, you consider the facts concerning your objective responsibility. You know, for example: 1. The laws related to this redevelopment project clearly authorize the condemnation and demolition of substandard structures. If the owner cannot or will not make the necessary repairs, the building may be torn down. 2. A long series of court cases have upheld this kind of action. 3. The criteria for determining substandard buildings are well defined in the agency guidelines for such projects and in the Urbopolis building and safety code. 4. You are responsible to Bronson, the Victoria Redevelopment Project director, for recommending which buildings should be demolished and which rehabilitated. If it looks as though this case will be a matter of dispute or if you cannot resolve the issue in your own mind, you may have to discuss it with him. 5. You are not sure what your responsibility for upholding the public interest requires of you in this case. You need to ascertain how the public, at least in the Victoria area, feels about it. Then you review in your mind what you know about Mrs. Carmichael's case and what essential information you need to obtain. You feel reasonably confident about the following: 1. From Harmon's description of her house, it probably falls into the demolition category. Harmon did not try to soften the hard realities of its condition, and Franklin concurred. 2. Because the house is in such bad shape it will not qualify for a federal grant or loan large enough to do the work required to avoid condemnation. 3. Mrs. Carmichael could not qualify for a loan from a private lending institution, and she would be unable to make the payments if she did. 4. If demolition takes place, Mrs. Carmichael could not afford to rebuild on the present site. 5. If the agency condemns the house for demolition, Mrs. Carmichael will receive market value for it. You feel much less certain about several other aspects of the case. You believe that you need to clarify, the following: 1. How does she feel about the situation? Harmon is deeply concerned about saving Mrs. Carmichael's house, but not once in his presentation of the problem did he report her viewpoint. It would be a good idea to stop by and hear her reactions firsthand. Maybe she would like to move into a place that she could manage better. 2. Can she handle a change in residence? What are her mental, emotional, and physical states? Is she in reasonably good health? You know that Harmon is right about the serious negative impact on some older people, but probably not all. 3. What are some options if her house is demolished? Will she have enough money from the agency's purchase of her house to buy another house elsewhere, or perhaps a condominium. Maybe she could invest the proceeds and produce enough additional income to afford a nice apartment. 4. Is Mrs. Carmichael truly an exceptional case? Are there other elderly people in project area one who face the same threat? Maybe they should be considered as a group. 5. How do people in the community feel about Mrs. Carmichael's case? Without violating her privacy, is it possible to assess how others believe their interests might be served or subverted by the way her case is handled? Finally, you reflect on your own personal inclinations. You attempt to clarify in our own mind what your subjective responsibility is with respect to Mrs. Carmichael. After mulling over it for a while, you realize the following: 1. Your general attitude toward older people is one of deep respect. Since your boyhood days with your grandparents you have felt almost a reverence for those who have survived the vicissitudes of the modern world. They evoke within you a deferential feeling. 2. This attitude is composed of a number of beliefs. You view them as having "paid their dues," as having worked hard and deserving our esteem for having done so. You believe young people often do not recognize the valuable knowledge and experience that older people have accumulated. You believe that the elderly are often ignored and mistreated. They generally do not receive what is coming to them. 3. Behind these beliefs are some values you have long recognized within yourself. Wisdom about life in the world, based on knowledge and experience, is important to you. Getting the most out of the time allotted to you is something about which you feel deeply. Perseverance in the face of hardship is a significant virtue in your value system. Fairness, or equity, is one of the most essential principles of all. Sensitivity to the feelings of others is another of your values. On the basis of these reflections you conclude that your strongest sense of subjective responsibility leads you in the direction of trying to resolve the problem without harming Mrs. Carmichael in any way. You do not want to disturb her life. However, you do have other obligations, also. You are the administrator responsible for making a recommendation about Mrs. Carmichael's house. You are paid to do that by MRA and you made a commitment to carry out that responsibility when you accepted the job. It is your objective responsibility, and as long as you hold this position you may not ignore it. Also, you have other subjective responsibilities associated with your administrative role. You feel responsible for maintaining morale and a cooperative team spirit among staff members. You value efficiency, and you believe these qualities are essential for an efficient organization. You also feel responsible for avoiding conflict with the residents of Victoria, both because that would upset the orderly schedule of work and lead to reduced efficiency and because you value the esteem of others. You want the residents to feel that you have been fair with them. Furthermore, you feel responsible to Bronson, the Victoria Project director, and Markham, the executive director of MRA, for maintaining the image of the agency. Loyalty to the organization is important to you. In determining the best course of action you may simply respond to the strongest and most definitive sources of objective responsibility-perhaps your superior, the law, or both if they coalesce. Or you may allow deep-seated feelings to function as the decisive factors. The perspective outlined in Chapter One assumes that if we want to make ethical decisions in a more intentional and rational manner, we must be more systematic. Working through the steps of the process outlined there is a way of accomplishing this task. As we consider alternative courses of action, their probable consequences, and how each might be defended, we are seeking an acceptable fit among the facts of a situation, our values, and our external obligations. Resolution is achieved when we are able to imagine an alternative that satisfies the need for consistency in out, fundamental self-image. This allows us to maintain our sense of integrity, a feeling of being an identifiable whole, someone whom we and others will recognize as the person we imagine ourselves to be. Needless to say, this self-image and sense of integrity should be shaped to a large extent by a normative public administrative identity, by an internalized public service ethic.

Write the following: 1. Summary of the facts presented. 2. Analysis of the problems. 3. Recommendations for solutions to the problems. 4. Implications your recommendations will have on the functioning of the organization

Field of study: 
No answers yet