Download - Yonkers Position paper
![Page 1: Yonkers Position paper](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf2b81a28ab893397a53a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Memorandum
To: TBD From: Jetmir Troshani Date: Date goes here Re: Yonkers: Position paper
Introduction
In relation to the Yonkers case study on point that is apparent is that ethical
dilemmas often arise due to conflicting responsibility (Cooper, 2012). This is the
issue that causes a supposed conflict of interest given that Mr. Cousens is the
president of the Education Board and also an advisor to the board. While acting as
Board President, Mr. Cousens is an individual who has the right to use the services
of firms such as H&S. It is important however to note that in some cases self interest
and responsibility toward the organization are synonymous (Davis & Stark, 2001). In
this case it would appear this is the case as submission of a resume is normal for
anyone seeking career improvement. Based on such situations it is required that a
high standard of proof is required to demonstrate a clear conflict of interest (Davis &
Stark, 2001). It is based on this position that this paper supports the statement that
there was no conflict of interest in Mr. Cousen’s dealings with H&S.
Discussion
In relation to the case, it has been observed that the primary mechanism used
to ensure order and efficiency in emerging market is transparency. The application of
transparency in an organization is critical to corporate social responsibility (Ihlen,
Bartlett & May, 2011). Transparency can be defined as the degree to which
information is available to outsiders that enables them to possess adequate
information to aid in decision making and assessing decisions by the organization.
![Page 2: Yonkers Position paper](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf2b81a28ab893397a53a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Transparency thus operates as a security device to reduce risk and promote a stable
environment within the organization.
According to Turner one appropriate approach to ensure that transparency is
maintained within an organization is the application of disclosure rules (Turner,
2009). These rules though commonly used in the management of financial
institutions can also be used in managing other organizations. Such rules contain
guidelines on information to disclose and the related circumstances (Turner, 2009).
In relation to positions such as that held by Mr. Cousen it may be prudent in future to
have instructions demanding disclosure of actions that may affect decision making
capacity to the board.
Just as in financial institutions and markets the use of strong disclosure
regimes within organizations can boost confidence in the management of
organizations (Du Plessis, Bagaric & Hargovan, 2011). For this reason the
consideration of appropriate disclosure mechanisms is a wise decision for any
organization. However, at the same time it has been suggested that disclosure
regimes should not place unrealistic pressure on the individuals involved (Du
Plessis, Bagaric & Hargovan, 2011). This is because if there is excessive pressure in
relation to disclosure it is likely that there will be excessive suspicion and as a result
loss of interest in the position.
In addition to disclosing the information, Mr. Cousens behavior suggests a
reasonable action aimed at completing ones duty with integrity or impartiality. This
kind of behavior is very crucial in cases of conflict of interest where the avoidance of
impropriety play a major role (Moliterno, 2006). This is because though the question
of impropriety is quite straightforward, the question of appearance is one that is fairly
difficult to address (Lewis & Gilman, 2005).
![Page 3: Yonkers Position paper](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf2b81a28ab893397a53a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
The issue of appearance is open to debate given that any action can be
wrongly perceived. This position suggests that appearance alone is inadequate as a
measure of impropriety given that it leaves room for excessive examination (Lewis &
Gilman, 2005). For this reason appearance of impropriety can be defined as when
an official appears to d something wrong, or when the official does something that
looks wrong (Lewis & Gilman, 2005). Given the disclosure by Mr. Cousens it
becomes impossible to suggest the appearance of impropriety in relation to his
decision.
![Page 4: Yonkers Position paper](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf2b81a28ab893397a53a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
References
Cooper, T. (2012). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to ethics for the
Administrative Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Davis, M., & Stark, A. (2001). Conflict of Interest in the Professions. New York:
Oxford University Press Inc.
Du Plessis, J., Bagaric, M., & Hargovan, A. (2011). Principles of Contemporary
Corporate Governance. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). The Handbook of Communication and
Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lewis, C., & Gilman, S. (2005). The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A Problem
Solving Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moliterno, J. (2006). Professional Responsibility: New York: Aspen Publishers Inc.
Turner, C. (2009). Corporate Governance: A Practical guide for Accountants.
Burlington, MA: CIMA Publishing.