Introduction
The State of Tennessee presents a crucial history, such as the Tennessee corruption case. Notably, each country has its corruption laws that illustrate how to deal with cases emerging from misconduct. Also, cases of corruption involves the justice system in any specific country. Forms of corruption vary to entail extortion, bribery, nepotism and grafts (Morris, 2011). Besides, embezzlement, cronyism and patronage also present various nature that corruption can occur. Corruption facilitates some criminal activities such as money laundering, drug and human trafficking (Morris, 2011). Thus, this necessitates a reflection on major corruption cases. Besides, most corruptions case is presented in a court of law. However, ethical failure may lead to bad decisions that may intentionally or intentionally violate a law regarding the conduct code. Individuals that determined the Tennessee Waltz corruption case depicted major failures ethically. Such people included the state officials comprising of state and local government personnel. This paper addresses the ethical failure of the individual's considered leaders in the Tennessee Waltz corruption case.
Background
Legal practitioners may be involved in decisions and cases that may depict an ethical failure. Most of the ethical issues are noted in the justice system and may require critical considerations (Hale, 2014). State officials have the mandate of ensuring that they adhere to the regulations. Some of the issues that can lead to ethical challenges include preparing the witnesses before giving evidence (Hale, 2014). Also, in most cases, instances of loss of witnesses are reported. Also, judges may involve themselves with the suspect's communication, leading to a serious ethical concern. Illegitimate witness preparation entails the coaching of the suspects, which may amount to a matter of concern. Hence, the code of ethics requires adherence to the courts' required procedure to eliminate the ethical concerns.
Different Roles in Ethical Concerns
Community leaders have the mandate of ensuring that they follow ethical procedures in their mandates. In all levels of governments, either state or local, the elected officials' behaviors have been scrutinized by the taxpaying and voting public. Expected leadership results are depicted in compliance with the ethical procedures. In the community, the media plays a critical role in focusing on the behavior of government officials. In recent, unethical behaviors seems to be increasing in government positions.
Moreover, in the government, the officers are expected to depict qualities of honesty and fairness. Leaders who fulfill these mandates expected in the offices achieve their ethical roles. When most leaders are involved in corrupt cases, the overall picture of the government tarnishes. There, public officials need to be honest. Unethical behavior is increasing significantly in government positions. New instances of illegal and ethical behaviors are reported daily. Thus, ethical conduct and accountability are essential matters in public administration.
The Tennessee Case and the Unethical Practices
In Tennessee, some bureaucratic and political stakeholders have been identified and caught up in scandals such as the Tennessee Waltz and operation rocky top. Thus, key issues require to be done to ensure bureaucratic and political leaders are more accountable. Public administrations go alongside with proper ethical conduct and accountability. Notably, bureaucratic accountability depicts specific principles that are applied in controlling organizations.
In the Tennessee Waltz case, circumstances begun with corruption in the circuit courts. The major ethical issue involved invoices fraud. Major accounting departments are accountable in the provision of means of checks and balances. External auditing agents can provide additional oversight in the accounting. Consequently, the audit reports are directed to the elected government officials. The standards used in financial reporting are essential in the reduction of corruption cases. The approaches also require to be combined with strict laws capable of holding individuals accountable for misleading information.
In May 2005, the Tennessee residents learned of the multiple alleged unethical behaviors involving Senator Ward and the State representatives (Arms, 2007). Crutchfield, the senator and the representative, Chris Newton, were involved in various unethical behaviors. Similarly, the news reported about Tennessee citizens involved in the same practices. The action was reported by a board member of a local school. For more than one year, the same news continued to be discussed in the media (Arms, 2007). Individuals involved continued to plead guilty. Additionally, they continued to be incarcerated and beginning to go through the trial process.
Crutchfield pleads guilty of accepting bribes. Likewise, Newton accepted having committed the same mistakes. Consequently, he was sentenced to 12 months in prison (Arms, 2007). In July 2006, the Cooper town mayor resigned amid scandals emerging from power abuse and racial bias and sexual slurs. Also, the mayor was using multiple traps, which ensured that revenues raised significantly in the town. In the same year, the same leader of the town was permitted back to the office. The court ruled that the crimes were committed unknowingly and also not willfully (Arms, 2007).
In 2005, various Tennessee lawmakers identified the illegal behaviors conducted in multiple changes (Arms, 2007). Also, the investigation was under the FBI investigation and took more than six years to investigate. The case began in the clerk’s office due to the acceptance of money for various activities that were never done. The case continued to be expanded to include the state senators and key public figures. Notably, the lawmakers were accepting a bribe (Arms, 2007). A lobbyist often committed unethical behaviors to benefit in the long-term.
Reforms in the Public Sectors
The case led to various reforms in the public sector, such as formation of new ethical laws. Also, the establishment of independent ethics is presented in the Tennessee Waltz case (Arms, 2007). The five state lawmakers involved in the illegal behaviors were arrested and indicted for two years of federal and state investigation (Arms, 2007). The case entailed representatives of major companies that we're approaching the lawmakers. The lawmakers were offered cash in return for votes, which would be essential in making it easier for those companies to conduct businesses with Tennessee, which amounted to unethical behavior.
In the public sector, vulnerability is a major challenge in compliance with ethical procedures (Xu et al., 2016). Thus, agency power increases significantly. In the Tennessee Waltz case, the officials in the state and local leaders believed their behaviors to be permissible. Notably, the behaviors emerge from having the assumption of power. The Tennessee Waltz affected the local government.
Moreover, the resultant of the case was the resignation of the state officers involved in the misconduct and prison sentences. The County Commissioner of Shelby, Michael Hooks, was indicted (Arms, 2007). He pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, such as acceptance of bribes. Later, Hooks acknowledged having full responsibility for the whole situation. He accepted the unethical conduct in his terms that he is blamable for the in the instance.
Similarly, in the same year, William Cotton, Hamilton county commissioner, went to trial and was later convicted of bribery and extortion (Arms, 2007). Additionally, the commissioner was sentenced to a three-year term in prison due to his engagement in unethical matters. Chris Newton, a former state representative, also pleaded guilty (Arms, 2007). As a result, he served a nine-month prison term. John Ford, a former state senator, underwent a bribery conviction resulting in a jail term of five and a half years.
Furthermore, Ford awaited changes in the court related to the Tennessee Waltz case. Besides, Kathryn Bowers, a former state senator, also pleaded guilty to the charges (Arms, 2007). However, the extortion charges were dismissed. Charles Love pleaded guilty to handling bribes for the state officers. He served in Hamilton Count in the board of education. According to Arms (2007), Charles was a lobbyist and was sentenced to one year in jail.
Calvin Williams, who served as a top administrator in the Shelby County Commission, was convicted due to bribery and extortion for thirty-three months (Arms, 2007). Multiple ethical issues encountered the office of the former governor, Donald Sundquist, a former governor at the end of his administration (Glaeser & Saks, 2006). The primary issue involved the lucrative workforce's award and lucrative labor contracts to the political supporters and close associates.
Most of the supporters and friends had little or no qualifications for the specific contracts. Besides, most of the contracts never went through a formal bid system. At the state, laws on the bidding process were poorly enforced. The investigation of the activities was carried out due to the making of the contract awarding system public. Hence, the governor depicts involvement in unethical behavior. Sundquist may not have been familiar with the activities or ordered for them. A leader has the capabilities of influencing or causing the occurrence of unethical behaviors. Thus, leaders essentially in their activities.
Motives of Unethical Conduct
Leaders’ influences emerge from their administrative powers around them. The nature of principles, interests, agendas and style affects the obligations and styles of those who work on their behalf. Failures of voicing the active commitments to zero tolerance to the unethical behaviors may also lead to corrupt practices. Leaders from both private and public sectors have the mandate to serve their constituents ethically; they also have the opportunities to serve as role models to the general public and those serving in their offices.
Leadership has powerful force in the departments that they serve both in the private and public sectors. Ethical capacities empower the public trust in the right mode of governance in the governance sector. In the leadership model, the Tennessee government depicts failures in following the right ethical procedures. Most of the leaders’ capability of pleading guilty exhibits failures in the state officers.
Due to the Sundquist administration's unethical actions, Joanna Ediger, a previous purchasing director at the Department of Workforce Development, has served a three-year prison term (Arms, 2007). Additionally, Sundquist was in the media under scrutiny. Besides, the close associates' former commissioner attended a trial in 2006 (Arms, 2006). Unethical behavior leads to negative effects such as reputations. Such actions prevent a leader from being proactive in ethical matters. Non-tolerance with the unethical behaviors among the local and state officers in Tennessee was less depicted in most of their activities.
As a result of ethical matters in the Sundquist administration, the focus has gone through a significant transition. In the current administration, ethics reform has been considered significant. From 2002, governor Bredesen signed various laws and issued executive orders to establish the ethics committee (Arms, 2007). Other orders continued to be issued especially concerning financial matters. The orders addressed conflicts of interest, ethics and acceptance of gifts in employees. The orders were primarily focusing on the service employees and the leaders.
