Those who choose the career path of working for municipalities can never forget the importance of public perception. It isn’t enough to just do your job; it is how others perceive the way in which you are doing your job is just as important. Case in point is the Tulsa City Auditor, Clift Richards. Ethical perceptions are often seen as ethical reality.
In an article by Zack Stoycoff for Tulsa World newspaper (August 10, 2013), it was revealed that in late July an anonymous complaint was filed against Richards on the city’s ethical telephone hotline.
The caller’s claim was that the City Auditor ran his tax business from his office during business hours. In addition he was accused of spending a lot of time away from his office and that he stole office supplies.
It is the auditor who normally handles such complaints, but in this case the city council is responsible for investigating the auditor (as the auditor can hardly audit himself!).
According to the article:
“Richards said Friday that the allegations are ‘just ridiculous’ and that he spends time on his tax business – F. Clift Richards, CPA – only at night and on weekends. ‘I’ve never, ever done a tax return in this office,’ he said. ‘We’re focused on trying to do the best we can for the city, and it’s just not true.’”
Tulsa, as with virtually every municipality in the nation prohibits using its offices for personal gain. The penalty for running a business in such a matter can include most everything, including removal from office.
Thickening Plot of Consequences
If it were just a matter of an anonymous crank call, Richards might be notified of the complaint, had a discussion with the city council, or some such exchange, and it would have been forgotten. However, perception often plays a major role into situations of this nature.
The Tulsa City Auditor’s Office has not exactly shown stellar productivity. In fact, the auditing activities of the office are supposed to have dropped to dismal levels. Productivity was so poor; that the former auditor was replaced in 2009
As bad as things were in 2009, when a grand total of six audits were conducted, it fell even further to only two audits in 2013. The recommendations that come out of the audits plummeted as well. In addition, the department saw major turnover and the number of employees dropped. Clift blamed the turnovers on poor (non-competitive) salaries and the lack of recommendations on “computer automation.”
Employees under Clift’s supervision, though denying they were the ones responsible for the anonymous complaint, were not shy about pointing out to the city council that the auditor was frequently out of the office. While they did not think he was running a business from his office, their complaints did allude to the fact that something was wrong with the way in which the office was operated.
What He Needed to Do
We are normally thought innocent until proven guilty, but the perception of ethical misconduct will likely cloud the city auditor so much, he would be best off in leaving office ahead of all the official hoopla. The fact that two employees have spoken out against him, is almost a guarantee that nothing will ever be the same with his employment situation again. Nothing he ever says now or in the future will help erase the perceptions.
The very first thing that Clift should have known, and indeed every public employee should understand is that if the goal is transparency it must be ethically transparent in both directions. Often I speak to municipalities about ethical issues and this is but another example. Public perception is important, but actions are critical. And while I don’t prefer to be critical, it appears that this issue is a textbook example of ethics misguided.
If the auditor was in charge of a department with poor productivity and employee high turnover, he needed to come before the city council, explain himself and offer solutions in a public forum.
If the recommendations following audits had dramatically dropped off due to a change in the computer software, it needed to be explained as well. The more public the explanation, the better off he would have been.
Here’s the problem, Mr. Audtor: audit productivity has declined, recommendations dropped, employees have left your employ, employees are complaining to the city council, and you’re out of the office a lot. What would you like people to think?
Were you sick? Was someone in your family sick? Are you indeed double-dipping? Are you visiting clients during business hours? If sickness was an issue and you were working from home, there could have been adjustments made.
But you see, Mr. Auditor, everyone knows you have a side business, and everyone in Tulsa knew, or could have found out through public records that you were earning $73,500 per year. No, it is not a fortune, but if you’re out of the office a great deal, and you run a small CPA firm on the side and your employees are angry enough to speak out against you, what do you think the outcome will be when you are faced with accusations? Even if your heart is pure, it won’t look good.
Ethical behavior can help you a great deal when it is used for good; for if ethical behavior is just for those you audit, but not for you, it will get you every time.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!