|
NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS DESCRIPTION NEWSLETTER CURRENT ISSUES PRESS RELEASES LINKS MEMBERS PAGE HISTORY SITE INDEX
|
WHY WE NEED A CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS This document is intended to explain why a code of professional ethics is needed in the EPA workplace. 8/25/99 Management Practices and Workplace Conditions of
Concern Because They Create Pressure To Violate the Code of Ethics For
Professionals at EPA There are current management practices and workplace conditions at EPA condoned by some elements of management which place strong pressure on EPA professionals to violate ethical principles and practices. Several examples follow: 1. Fear by some EPA managers of political retribution from economically powerful industries that are doing things harmful to the environment is one negative condition we as professionals must deal with at EPA. Some managers fear being punished if they tell the truth and/or "do the right thing" with regard to controlling the environmental problem which that particular industry is causing. This is especially problematic when the fearful manager is at the top of an organization's chain of command. The fearful manager "chickens out," because its easier to deal with the dismay and anger of the professionals that work for him or her than to deal with the dismay and anger of higher echelon managers or of an industry with lots of money to contribute to the re-election campaigns of members of Congress and with plenty of access to those members and their staffs, and with the certainty of a sympathetic hearing. 2. It is this condition - political pressure down the chain of command - that is the source of the problem for most unethical behavior by professionals at EPA: Frightened managers pressure professionals to write assessments and analyses that appear to justify a control action which is well less than that which the real risks and real costs suggest are actually warranted. 3. There is a lack of a management process for dealing with a conflict between a professionals's analysis of an issue and Agency policy on that issue. This is a problem: 1) when facts elicited in an analysis do not support the Agency policy and the analysis is then ignored, altered or otherwise subverted by management; or 2)when the professional refuses to remain silent on the issue, and is then subjected to disciplinary sanctions. 4. Tracking and assessment of professional performance should be based on the number of assessments or analyses prepared and their quality, as judged in light of applicable professional standards, and not exclusively on the number of assessments or analyses that produced a certain prescribed result. (E.g., the performance standard should not be "number of new pesticides registered" but "number of proposed new pesticides assessed.") 5. When work is initially assigned to a professional, the assignment must be made in such a way that it is clear that the work product is to be a complete, unconstrained analysis or assessment of the matter at issue. 6. The amount of work time and calendar time allotted to the professional assigned to do the work by the manager assigning the work must be appropriate to the importance of the results. Consideration must be given to the health and environmental risks involved, control and other costs, the complexity of the subject matter, the size of the relevant literature, and the number of experts on that subject within and outside EPA who must be consulted for a complete and balanced work product to be produced. 7. As civil servants serving the public interest, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employees are entrusted with the responsibility of acting conscientiously to fulfill EPA's assigned mission to protect human health and the environment: o Those in our trust include: – The American public, including dependent minors and others not yet of
voting age o Those affected by our actions also include: – Those who release pollutants into our environment Those in this latter group are members of the "regulated community"; they are not our "customers". They are those whose behavior we must monitor, assess and enforce against environmental standards and the law. We accept the usefulness of obtaining feedback from those in the first group regarding their satisfaction with our performance. Although some in the latter group appreciate our efforts and do their best to cooperate, many others do not. We reject the validity of assessing how "satisfied" those in the latter group are with our performance. Every person we deal with, including those in the "the regulated community", deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. But they also need to be handled with candor as to the seriousness of any violations and their impact on the public interest. They need to be handled with firmness when they violate the law. 8. In working to fulfill its mission, EPA managers and staff rarely interact directly with the general public or with regulated firms. Instead, for most programs, EPA managers and staff work with and through State and local agencies. While in some cases the relationship between EPA and the State or Local agency is one of true partnership, more often it is not. Further, with the current focus within EPA on identifying customers and getting customer feedback, there is also a tendency to view State and local environmental agencies as our "customers." Neither is an accurate description of the nature of the relationship in most cases. Treating State and local environmental agencies and officials as "customers" is therefore inappropriate. They are not our customers; they are at best our partners, but more often they are an additional class of entities and individuals that we - to all intents and purposes - regulate.
|