FIONA’S DILEMMA
Fiona’s dilemma is not very complicated. She has a clear choice, to have the evaluation mandated by the governor’s commissioners contracted out so that her hands are clean of tough decisions on what programs should be cut, or if she can handle the task she was hired to do under Elinor Ames. Extenuating factors are that nobody is really happy that the governor had made competing campaign promises, both of which, it is assumed, he or she wants to keep with the voters. The governor was probably elected, in part, because of these promises. The programs are probably very necessary social programs that are already experiencing financial crisis, as this seems to be the case in most states of the union.
The cost of Fiona contracting the evaluation out is that she has not completed her job, and therefore her reputation may suffer a little, though probably not in the eyes of Elinor, who seems equally concerned. She would also be leaving Elinor with the job of finding other consultants, which she should not have to do, as Fiona is the one employed to do this type of job (Office of Government Ethics, 1993). This may also cause trust issues between her and the government. The benefit is that Fiona can go home and sleep at night, knowing that she did not have to decide what programs to cut herself. If she makes the decision to do the job, the converse costs and benefits will probably occur.
Fiona’s decision could cost the agency its reputation if the job is contracted out, leaving it vulnerable to even more speculation and cuts. The governor was just elected, and if that governor perceives problems with the agency early on, it is likely that new people will be hired to replace the people already working, and a grudge will be held. The benefits of the company contracting the work out is that it sends a clear message to the governor, and to the state, that the social programs are necessary, and cannot afford to be trimmed down. Once again, the converse costs and benefits will probably hold up if the decision to take the job is made.
In order to answer what I would do if in Fiona’s shoes, I’ll start with an example. Kim David was hired as a county clerk in Kentucky. Last year, when rights to marry were extended to the GLBT community, Mrs. Davis refused to register those types of marriage, because she did not feel it was morally acceptable. The problem is that she is a government employee, which trumps a single person’s moral compass (Thompson, 2015). Freedom of religion was also recently held up by the Supreme Court, meaning she could work anywhere that did not support gay marriage based on religious viewpoints. Instead, she decided to keep her position with the government, and faces serious charges for doing so. Not everybody shares her opinion. Not everybody shares Fiona’s opinion. If I am unable to do a job that I am mandated to, I know the where the door is, and I know there will be opportunities. If Fionna contracts her work out, she is not doing her job, which she is ethically contracted to do (Office of Government Ethics, 1993). She should work with Elinor to see where programs could stand to be trimmed with the least amount of impact.
References
Office Of Government Ethics. (1993). Subpart E: Impartiality in Performing Official
Duties. The United States Office of Government Ethics. retrieved from
http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulations/Employee-Standards-of-Conduct
/Employee-Standards-of-Conduct/
Thompson, M. (2015). Religious Exceptionalism and the Law: Kim Davis’ Marriage
Equality Protest. The Humanist. retrieved from http://thehumanist.com/news
/national/religious-exceptionalism-and-the-law-kim-daviss-marriage-equality-protest
