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.

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).

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.

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.