Ethos International, Inc.

FAR and Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

2008-07-15T14:00:00+00:00

COMMENT PERIOD REOPENED Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2007-018, Organizational Conflicts of Interest AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; Reopening of comment period.

Trust, Ethics and the Technology Factor

2008-07-07T20:45:00+00:00

“Trust, Ethics and the Technology Factor” or “If I had wanted to be a CIO, I would not have gone to law school....” A CLE Ethics Presentation for the Arizona Bankruptcy Bar State Bar of Arizona 2008 Bar Convention Living Our Legacy 1933-2008 The 75th Annual State Bar Convention June 20, 2008 "If I'd wanted to be a CIO, I wouldn't have gone to law school" is the subtitle of the presentation given at the Arizona State Bar Convention about the ethical trouble lawyers can get into using current technology. The lengthy presentation is available upon request on the documents and resources page. GM

The Past is a Foreign Country:Old Rules+New Technologies = Surprising Risks

2008-07-07T22:00:00+00:00

The Past is a Foreign Country:Old Rules+New Technologies = Surprising Risks L.P. Hartley, the English author, once memorably wrote that “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” I am not yet old enough to collect Social Security retirement benefits. When I attended law school and entered into the practice of law, people appearing to talk to themselves as they walked down the street were considered deranged; Bluetooth was a temporary dental problem resulting from eating fruit; Blackberries were a fruit; Google was the misspelling of a very high number; cells were places in jails where criminal clients were detained; Shepardizing a case involved red paperback books; and Spam was a canned pink gelatinous substance that pretended to be meat.

Federal Contractor Ethics Reporting Requirements: Version 2

2008-06-17T14:15:00+00:00

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are seeking comments on changes to the proposed rule, FAR Case 2007-006, Contractor Compliance Program and Integrity Reporting, published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 64019, November 14, 2007, for which the initial comment period has closed, that may be included in the final rule. The Councils do not contemplate publishing a final or interim rule until public comments are received and considered on the specific changes discussed further in this document.

The Emerging Era in Whistleblower Rights

2008-06-11T22:30:00+00:00

The Emerging Era in Whistleblower Rights and the Public’s Right to Know JUNE 23 9:30 am - 5:00 pm *CLE* Emerging from eight years of unprecedented assertions of unchecked executive power and government secrecy and a judicial rollback of citizens’ free speech rights, Congress has a real opportunity to enact openness reforms and whistleblower protections. The conference focuses on new and pending laws that empower employees to blow the whistle and make our institutions more open and accountable. Panel 1 addresses what went wrong with the old whistleblower laws; how public employees’ First Amendment rights have been constrained; and how recently enacted reforms will help remedy these shortcomings. Panel 2 considers strategies for effecting national security disclosures and legislative reforms to protect national security whistleblowers. The final panel focuses on how pending laws will advance an openness agenda and occupational free speech. Sponsored by The Government Accountability Project & American University Washington College of Law Students, Alumni, Faculty, Staff & General Public – no charge (registration is required) CLE Accreditation (4.5 credits) in VA, PA, and NY other states can be applied to by Washington College of Law upon request CLE Registration - $35 To register for this event please click the link below: http://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/registration.cfm Program Flyer Program Agenda https://www.wcl.american.edu/secle/fall/2008/080623.cfm

Government Contracting: False Claims and Integrity

2008-06-14T17:15:00+00:00

Not long ago, I responded to a comment about fraud and misconduct not being reported, with reflections on the history of the defense industry and the Qui Tam amendments to the 1986 U.S. False Claims Act. This week, in ALLISON ENGINE COMPANY, INC., et al., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES ex rel. ROGER L. SANDERS and ROGER L. THACKER, the U.S. Supreme Court made news when it voted unanimously in favor of restricting the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. The bottom-line appears to be that whistleblowers will not be rewarded, if they cannot prove the false claim was a key factor in the Government's decision to make payment. Probably good law, but not good sense.

High Court Limits Whistleblowers

2008-06-11T18:15:00+00:00

On June 9, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of restricting the whistleblower provisions of the U.S. False Claims Act. Now, the Court ruled, a whistleblower needs to prove that there was more than just a false statement involved in any sort of government fund or contract. Instead, an employee must prove that the company “intended that the false statement is ‘material’.” The ruling stems from a case involving Navy contractors building destroyers. The Navy contracted with two different shipyards, which required generators. The shipyards subcontracted with Allison Engine Company to build the generators with bases and enclosures. Allison subcontracted with General Tool Co. (GTC) to assemble the generators, and GTC in turn outsourced the work of building the generators' bases and enclosures to yet another firm, SOFCO. All of the subcontracts reportedly included clauses that required products to have a “certificate of performance,” guaranteeing they met Navy standards. Under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, two GTC employees blew the whistle on Allison and the subcontractor that built the bases and enclosures, for allegedly issuing certificates of performance under false pretenses. A federal appeals court sided with the two employees, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision sending it back to the lower courts. The official syllabus follows and the full opinion is available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-214.ZO.html

Norm Augustine Responds to Comments

2008-06-03T15:45:00+00:00

Pat Harned and Scott Avelindo provide important data and insights answering the question I had raised.

SISA Alliance on Collaboration and Security

2008-05-27T15:45:00+00:00

Interview with Grace Mastalli quoted in SIGNAL Magazine regarding how to protect, safeguard and share sensitive information. To see full article click here: http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1405&zoneid=215

Two additional reasons for not reporting misconduct, by Daryll Ward, Ph.D.

2008-05-26T16:00:00+00:00

Over my twelve years as a business ethics consultant and Senior Fellow of the Ethics Resource Center it was my privilege to work with some 70 corporations as well as with the Ministry of Health of the United Arab Emirates. I worked with senior executives in drafting codes of conduct for more than a dozen large corporations including General Motors and Lockheed Martin. In addition to this direct work in description and evaluation of corporate cultures and the efforts to positively impact those cultures, I spent more than a decade managing clinical programs for general acute hospitals. Today I teach ethics to future health care professionals.

Response to Hal Shear's query

2008-05-23T16:15:00+00:00

Good question from Hal about the concern that fraud and misconduct were not being reported due to the economic vulnerability of those who observed it. This concern was one basis for the Qui Tam amendments to the US False Claims Act in 1986. These provisions-- inspired by perceived problems in the defense industry -- provide both Rewards and Protections to certain Whistleblowers who in effect "stand in the shoes of the government".

Lockheed Martin ethics officer responds to Norm Augustine

2008-05-21T16:00:00+00:00

I’ve just now been able to review the responses from Norm Augustine, Pat Harned, and Scott Avelino to your Dangerous Silence blog. Having served for twenty years as an ethics officer for Lockheed Martin, both for operating units in the field and at the corporate headquarters, I would like to share my perspective on the dangerous silence of employees who know of misconduct, but who choose not to report it.

Comments on responses to Norm Augustine

2008-05-20T13:45:00+00:00

Is it possible that the reluctance to report "observations of mis-conduct or violations of corporate policy" is an assessment by the employee that such pronouncements do not paint an absolute bright line of moral or ethical judgment?

Scott Avelino Responds to Norm Augustine

2008-05-19T10:45:00+00:00

I count myself among the many who have long admired Mr. Augustine as a champion in the field of business ethics. His observations are consistent with what I hear from others who are on the receiving end of hotline calls; namely, that many hotline allegations are of the routine HR variety, and few ever produce a “stop the presses” moment. But it may be premature to end the story there.

ERC's Patricia Harned Responds to Norm Augustine

2008-05-14T20:45:00+00:00

We invited Patricia Harned, president of Ethics Resource Center, to respond to Norm Augustine's questions regarding the data underlying "Dangerous Silence" Here are Pat's comments: