Scenario

Taggart County in Florida has a regular population of over 150,000, an annual operating budget of over $650 million, and a capital improvement project budget of over $175 million. Regular infrastructure projects in Taggart are funded through the operating budget and through the capital improvement project budget, which is adopted each year by the county commission.

Over the last year, the county government has undertaken a project to repair and replace 10 miles of sidewalks in the underserved, unincorporated community of Bluebird. The 500-home community of Bluebird is made up of primarily African American homeowners and renters, many who have lived there most of their lives. Sixty-five percent of families are female-led, and the median household income is $32,000 for a family of four, which is roughly half the area median income (AMI) of $60,000. A little over year ago, there was an accident in which a 10-year-old girl was riding her bicycle on the sidewalks and was severely injured as a result of the uneven, hazardous pavement.

Brookes Brothers Concrete Company was a leading advocate for the replacement of the sidewalks in the community. In fact, Brookes Brothers lobbyists privately brought the issue of crumbling sidewalks to the attention of a county commissioner named Harold Winter outside of a meeting given proper notice as required by law. Winter had previously worked at the Brookes Brothers company, and it was later found out that their communications were not properly documented. While there was never mention of corruption rising to the level of a corporate kickback, there were verifiable issues with communications that took place outside of what is permitted by law for lobbyists and elected local government officials.

In the yearly budget, only $12 million for sidewalk repairs had been allocated for the entire county, so the absolute most that could be spent on Bluebird without compromising the county's ability to pay for maintenance and repairs in other places was estimated by the department of budget and financial services at $3 million. Ultimately, Brookes Brothers won the contract by submitting a bid of $2.5 million for the work to be completed within nine months. However, it has become clear that Brookes Brothers underbid the project in order to win the contract. They have been submitting substantial overage fees that are drawing near to the maximum budget of $3 million. The work is significantly behind schedule at just over a year, which has made it increasingly seen as a real disruption to community life, instead of a beneficial public works project.

Public disapproval of the project has reached a peak due to a recent investigative report from local media implying that the project is a result of backroom dealing on the part of the Commissioner Winter and Brookes Brothers. In response, the county manager has promised to open an internal investigation to determine whether there was in fact wrongdoing, as well as to identify strategies for getting the project back on track.

Directions

As the assistant county manager of budget and audit, you have been appointed by the county manager to conduct the investigation and author a report documenting your findings. Specifically, she has asked that you evaluate the following aspects:

In your memo, be sure to address the following topics:

1. Background: Describe the various political, social, economic, and cultural variables that impacted the decision to requisition the work. In other words, defend the legitimacy of the project. To what extent does this project reflect a genuine need? What would be the potential risks to social equity if the project were to end prior to completing the work?
2. Analysis: Identify the rules and codes of conduct that are relevant to the case using the provided reference case materials, and discuss their significance. Be sure to address the following:
   1. Illustrate the appropriate role of public administrators in influencing the development of public policy. Where are the relevant lines drawn between appropriate advocacy and inappropriate manipulation within public bureaucracy?
   2. Explain the lobbying and procurement process in your county. What are the key regulations and ethical expectations of public administrators that apply to this case? How do these rules more generally reflect the need for accountability in public agencies?
3. Assessment: Evaluate the extent to which wrongdoing or unethical behavior was present in this case, including the following:
   1. Address the issue of backroom dealing between Commissioner Winter and the Brookes Brothers company. In other words, to what extent were government accountability and transparency regulations infringed?
   2. Evaluate the role of public-private partnerships when addressing the service demands of the community. In other words, to what extent has Brookes Brothers and the Taggart County government lived up to their respective, established norms and expectations for public-private partnerships?
4. Recommendations: Articulate your suggestions for remediating any ethical concerns regarding this case, including identifying the various department heads that should be involved to reinforce codes of conduct and organizational practice moving forward.