Assignment: Applying Ethical Decision-Making Models to Guerrilla Government As mentioned in previous weeks, Cooper’s ethical decision-making model and Waldo’s Map of Ethical Obligations assist respons

Guerrilla Government in EPA Seattle Office

Rosemary O’leary explains that, “Guerrilla government is a mutant cross

pollination of policy entrepreneurship and the politics of expertise”. Politics of expertise,

coined by Benveniste, suggests that public and private policy is somehow influenced by

experts. Regardless of what side of the issue or policy the expert stands, Benveniste adds

that “politics are not devoid of ideological content”. When considering the merit and

legitimacy of an expert, one may conclude that the expert is very skilled and is most

informed on the subjects of their studied field.

Democracy holds undeniable value to citizens and patriots of America for obvious

reasons. It boasts fairness, no moral respect of person, and representation in the freedom

of public choice. This freedom of choice is then summoned to the representative, who is

believed to hold the keys to the “agenda universe”. Why would citizens entrust their

values and interests with another human, other than the fact that they do not have much

choice in the means of democracy, but only in the democratic system already established?

It may be because their values are allegedly shared by an elite human considered to be an

expert. It may seem only logical that an expert holding shared values of the individuals

they are representing will be most concerned and equipped to unlock the agenda universe

for the reasons they were selected. However, it is less obvious and less considered how

this same expert holds the keys to a guerrilla government, when opportunity presents.

In 1980, when Ronald Regan was elected president, he sought to make dramatic

changes in the federal government. Although supporters expected such changes as

spending reduction, government involvement and interference with private enterprise, Page 2

they could not have expected an evolution of guerrilla government. As appointees Anne

Gorsuch and her good friend John Spencer vowed to take on this shared value of reduced

government regulation, this undesirable guerrilla began to take form. When

representatives or in this case appointees use their “keys” for reasons other than the

elected purpose, it becomes clearer how the government becomes polluted with secret

agendas, hypocrisy and corruption.

It appeared that John Spencer was eager to promote Reagan’s visions from his

first assurance as administrator of The EPA Seattle Region 10 office to address pollution

problems. He called for an end of “regulation for regulations sakes”. Rosemary O’leary

informs that The EPA Seattle Region 10 office encompasses Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and

Washington State. It is important to keep in mind that Spencer previously served as

executive manager of municipal utilities in Anchorage, as well as former city attorney

and former vice president of RCA Alaska Communications (O’Leary, pg. 48).

Conflict of interest and the beginning stages of hubris attitude is shown when

Spencer attempted to buy an official membership for the EPA in the Chamber of

Commerce with taxpayers money, when he took non-government related trips at the

public’s expense, when he asked to have a full-time personal driver, and have

unapproved modifications made to the EPA office building. This hubris is the beginning

of a guerrilla government. Early-on Spencer began demonstrating actions not clearly

related to the cause that he was clearly appointed, which was partially limiting

government relation. Without certain regulation, politicians and the likes can legally

impose injustices on their constituents. 0

Page 3

It deserves applause that the director of Management Division chose the high road

and refused to find the individual responsible for whistle-blowing against Spencer’s early

hubris actions. Therefore, Spencer’s bleak approach of “management by stark terror” is,

to an extent, unsuccessful. John Spencer’s indirect suggestion to control employee’s

liberty in going to the inspector general was one way to try injecting a small dose of

corruption into the political system for long-term purposes. The Director of

Management’s truth verses his loyalty resulted in him being transferred when he told

Spencer that public funds could not be used for personal trips or personal drivers.

Management by “stark terror” found its way back on Spencer’s agenda as he began to

make an example out of any staff in which he was displeased. This action clearly showed

flawed virtue. Spencer continued seeking personal benefits by sending letters on EPA

stationary, demanding a permit for the lobbied Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of a

yacht club, in which he was a member. The requests were denied, and became public

record as a result of concerns express by Washington State Dept. of Game (pg. 51).

John Spencer was criticized for not enforcing the law. He delayed cleaning up

hazardous waste; he chose to forgo litigation even though officials stated that chemicals

at Western Processing Company had the potential to threaten the city of Kent’s water

supply. Although the potential may not have warranted definite problems, his negligence

had potential widespread effects, whereas exemptions for two large Alaska pulp mills

were granted under his tenure and clearly not warranted under the law. Page 4

The first real ethical dilemma began when Spencer ordered an engineer to release

confidential information to what was obviously a competitor business. In another truth vs.

loyalty case, the engineer took the high road and refused to deliver what was clearly an

illegal act, but later compromised the truth in a partial attempt maintain loyalty.

Even though Spencer ended up retiring after alleged involvement in a plan to use

government money to re-elect Republicans, and Anne Gorsuch and eighteen other high-

level EPA officials were fired or had resigned, the guerrilla government was ready for

more extremities (O’leary, pg 53). This was most likely due to the fatigue and

hopelessness felt throughout the agency from the countless offenses that had taken place.

John Spencer seemed to be involved in one plot after another. After so much corruption

that never ended up in a real investigation, surely it seemed pointless to continue whistle-

blowing. Employees under this condition simply give up and become tired of a constant

battle for justice within what should be an ethical organization. Therefore the agentic

shift maintains the guerrilla atmosphere.

Every employee had the opportunity to go to the inspector general regarding their

concerns with Spencer’s unethical leadership. It became their ethical dilemma whether or

not anything would be done. Furthermore, it could have put their jobs in jeopardy. Their

suspicions that nothing would be done was confirmed when investigators revealed that

there was insufficient evidence to pursue prosecution and that no real harm was done.

The fact is, there were incidents on record, such as Spencer’s letters written to the yacht

club; there were witnesses, such as the engineer who stamped confidential on documents

that Spencer order to be delivered to the competitor. In other words, there was Page 5

legitimately enough proof to challenge the defense and cause public concern if the case

against Spencer had been made public. In order to discontinue guerrilla government

behavior, the first signs of hubris and moral conversions must be consistently challenged

by all those witnessing. It is almost impossible to intercept these actions without a

coalition of agreeing individuals with a viable plan. Just as agentic shifts are created with

small doses, systematic thoughts of good virtue must offset the moral inversion. The

only way to diagnose an ethical issue is to first identify an ethical problem and analyze

the ethical rules being applied in order to find alternative solutions. An alternative that

would have returned the agency back to one of ethical standing was obviously an

administrator that was qualified and sincerely committed to the EPA’s responsibility.

Seattle banker Ernesta Barnes, who was appointed administrator after John

Spencer, reinstated the director that had been fired. Rosemary O’Leary also says that

Barnes never hesitated to defend EPA staff when she thought they were right. The sooner

the agency could have gotten Ernesta or an administrator of her caliber, the sooner the

EPA could have reversed the effects of the guerrilla government. Barnes was fairly

successful in reversing unlawful exemptions and was considered “highly respected” when

she left the agency.

It was unfortunate that newly appointed Robie Russell uprooted all that Ernesta

Barnes had accomplished. Like John Spencer, it seemed that he had conflict of interest

having worked as attorney for a law firm in Idaho. However, he continued the way of

guerrilla government by beginning what appeared to be a strong EPA stance against Page 6

pollution and hazardous waste. For many this could have been a relief that they were free

from stressful, disingenuous leadership. There was no doubt that the guerrilla

returned after allegations began piling. He proposed oil drilling in Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge, held closed-door decision making meetings, hid bills and took private

trips funded by government money. One method of avoiding administrative evil, based

on previous experiences with Spencer is to disqualify any appointees with obvious

conflicts of interests.

The deputy administrator was presented with a dilemma as he strategized his plots

with division directors as a way to stay connected, since he was not allowed in Russell’s

closed-door meetings. This is an issue of truth vs. loyalty; if he was to whistle-blow, he

risk exposing his own faults. This could also be an issue of short term vs. long term if he

had stop to think how his short term actions could affect the long term consequences.

Again, as concerns began brewing, the staff’s hope to halt more corruption was to

document all suspicious actions and build the case to publicize. Certainly, no one could

have anticipated the Inspector General’s dismissal and denial of any wrong doings, as

they have been through this process before. In this case where mischief was obvious, the

only other option seem to be an investigation of the Inspector General. Unfortunately,

Russell’s behavior resulted in public health hazards, asset transfers that complicated

cleanup recovery costs, and unsafe levels of lead found in 8 children’s blood.

By taking a teleological approach, staff could have possibly prevented these

mishaps. By any “ethical” means necessary, the case of having Robie Russell removed Page 7

could have justified the end-(his removal), whereas the deontological approach of

following imperial principles would definitely cause more harm than good.

The guerrilla government prevailed through expert infractions. In all fairness, the

few attempts for staff to take the high road were snuffed out, which more than likely

discouraged any stronger retaliation of the guerrilla, as planned. Ethically speaking,

individuals that consider themselves ethical must remain consistent in their ethical

beliefs, at all costs, in order to avoid being in conjunction with an unethical entity. In

conclusion, a low road bureaucrat opposed of guerrilla government may be as guilty as

those participating in guerrilla activity. That could inevitably lead to another dilemma of

justice vs. mercy, but given the government’s responsibility to uphold the constitution,

one could only hope that justice will prevail in the valued land of democracy. Guerilla Government in EPA Seattle Office

PSC 504 Leadership & Ethics

For

Dr. Paul Hathaway

Fredric D. Mack

April 7, 2011