Hi, Janet,
In-reply-to: Your message dated "Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:30:46 -0400"
Re: ethics v. legality :
------------
>The more important question here is whether you want to get involved in
>a feud, which your posting seems to suggest by the use of the word
>"polarized".
>My advice is: stay out of either camp. I've personally
>worked in a public library where people spent most of their time wrangling
>about stuff that could not be changed and for which they were not responsible.
>It was a most unhappy place to work.
>Let the director or whoever is reponsible worry about this...that's what
>they are being paid to do.
>Why get involved in a feud that potentially could hurt you later?
>Consider the consequences if someone in the *second*
>camp suddenly becomes your boss!
>Strong advice for us busybody librarians, but an option worth considering.
>Janet Stevenson
>ABB Environmental
>Birmingham, Alabama
-----> the problem there is that no one is really taking charge of the
situation. The other problem is that ignoring shenanigans not
only puts the position of the department head at risk because
it is that person's responsibility to ensure that monies are
spent appropriately in keeping with ethical & policy guidelines.
Another problem is that ignoring signals condoning which could further
implicate the technically innocent department head.
The head of the unfortunate department was already known for standards
which do not include ethical shenanigans, so that person's reason for
concern in that realm dissipated and normal business resumed.
Regarding the "busybody" comment, I think there is a distinction to
be made between "busybody" and "caring", only the latter of which can
transpire in discretion. Yes, places in which people have time for
petty squabbles do tend to be unhappy and unproductive.
WHenever someone is innocently dragged into a potentially dangerous
situation, it is always f a r more than a mere feud of the
small-minded gossip sort. Closing one's eyes only leads to the
sort of mentality which allowed tons of people to collaborate with
e.g. certain expansionist regimes in 1930s and wartime Europe. And
remember how the collaborators were dealt with after WWII... Yes,
anyone whose work does not immediately touch on the problem should
indeed stay out of it, but the person dragged into it unwillingly and
unsuspectingly, alas, has no choice but to take a position on the matter.
Antje
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Antje <Antje.Mays@Citadel.edu> wrote:
>>Last I heard, the library is
>>now polarised -- one school of thought is that it is inappropriate
>>to purchase
>>things from the shop owned by one's employees.....
>>Folks, _I_ side with the f i r s t camp. But it seems that such >ethics
>is unwritten, that no specific laws govern such transaction >scenarios.
>>
>>Now, my advice to the purchasing department head is to say to hexx with it and
>>go work in a sane environment where standards & guidelines are clear-cut. But
>>I feel shallow in knowing nothing tangible regarding the actual legality or
>>illegitimacy of such transactions.
>>>What does the wisdom of law-lib say?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:00 PST