Citron's Scam with Public Funds - Term Paper Example

Orange County Case As Press (2009) argues, public officers must always look for way to observe ethical standards. In any society, the members of the society give up their liberty, at least to some extent in order to make sure that those who are in power can take care of their needs. Those who are elected to public offices are highly responsible in making sure that they are toiling for the good of the society they are servicing. They not only have to work within the legal requirements, but also have to look at the ethical issues in their ways of doing this work (Roberts, 1997). In this regard, they have to guarantee sure that their actions are aligned with the ethical requirements. In the case, one thing that comes up is the case of the fact that the involved individuals were not observant of the ethical issues in their service. First in place was former treasurer, Robert Citron who was regarded by the others as he King Midas. Citron would use his finance knowledge to multiply money in the risky derivatives market. This was unethical and it was definitely not necessary for such a government official to be involved in such a racket. Citron knew very well that what he was doing was not only wrong but also unethical due to the high risk. He was using public funds to engage in the money market and although this worked well for a long time, it eventually ended affecting the state in a very negative way. Citron was not alone and was involved in a situation where so many other public official were being involved in the racket. Citron would work for these publicly elected officials in order to make sure ha they get the funding they wanted, the officials were comfortable to use him s the rainmaker. The officials wool use the money gained by Citron’s gambling processes as a way to make sure that they would appeal to the electorate by not requiring them to pay more taxes for development projects. In accordance to this, it can be seen that Citron was not in this racket alone but was in it with the official who used him to achieve their political dreams. Politicians always face the dilemma of either being popular or having to take some decisions which are to very unpopular and make them less popular (Beylevel & Wright, 2009). In this case, the issue of paying tax is always a thorn in the flesh if the many politicians and most of them would do anything to avoid the issue of asking the electorate to pay more taxes for development. Most politicians know that by avoiding the issue of taxes, they can win the hearts of the electorate. This is more indicated in situations where the politicians are able to achieve a number of developments without asking for more taxes. In this regard the scam by Citron offered a very good chance for the politicians to be able to achieve just this. They could be able to offer more development for public where they were serving but at the same time avoiding having to ask the electorate to pay more taxes. This was definitely good for their public image and many enjoyed the King Midas for the golden tough. The king Midas in this case was Citron, the city accountant who could use his financial knowledge to use make money for the politicians. He could do this in the risky money market and helped them get funds for community development. The unethical issue in this is that the public officials were using public money in risky investment which was very close to gambling with public money. Although the plan worked for a long time the issue is the fact that this eventually ended in the state being bankrupt where the market did not fact this risky businesses. Citron then pleaded quality to frauds charges. This indicates that he was aware of his unethical as well as illegal businesses when he was still doing the illegal and unethical gambling. Elected officials also are to blame, not only were they not observant of the ethical issue, they were also ready and willing to participate in the illegal practices that were going on (Stuart, 1997). They knew very well that there was something wrong but chose to be in it because it provided for a way to make them popular with electorate, in this case, they were not serving the good of the public as they should have done, but only serving their own needs and interest. Both Citron and he elected officials had an obligation to the public to do the flowing; First, they were supposed to avoid the gambling because this was unnecessary. Secondly, they were supposed to make sure that they put the interest of the public first before theirs. This was especially very necessary and very important. Public officials must always know that they are supposed to carry out their actions in the best interest of the citizens and not in their best interest, this is especially so when acting in official capacity. The assumptions The officials assumed that since all was working well and they were able to initiate public development projects without having to asks the public to pay more taxes, that this was well. They failed to see the evils in the good they were doing. Eventually, the system collapsed in them and they were not able to save themselves from the trap. It is always necessary for any public officials and even in the private sector to note how important it is to guarantee that they are able to operate within the standards, of professional and ethics that guide their careers (Keown, 2002). This is what the officials failed to do and in this rages, most of them were blinded by the appeal of success and also by the hooded reality of being able to meet the development requirements without having to ask for more taxes. References Beyleveld, B., &Wright, J. (2009). Research Ethics Committees, Data Protection and Medical Research in European Countries. London, UK: Ashgate. Stuart, F.S. (1997). Ethical Dimensions of Geriatric Care: Value Conflicts for the 21st Century. new York, NY: Springer. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Press, B. (2009). Insider's Guide to Key Committee Staff of the U.S. Congress 2009. New York, NY: Bernan Press. Roberts, N. (1997). From Watergate to Whitewater: The Public Integrity War. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group. Read More