In the wake of the early retirement of former Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet are charges she failed to carry out her duties and faithfully investigate disclosures against the government. Mum’s the word on Ms. Ouimet’s part because she has been unable to meet with the Public Accounts Committee since her departure. Official word is she is “out of the country.” It is important to note that the appearance of unethical behavior stems entirely from allegations at this point. Until Ms. Ouimet meets with the committee, it may be difficult to establish any of these. What is clear is that her office failed to take any action on an overwhelming majority of the 228 disclosures received. Public dockets show the commissioner’s determination that she did not have jurisdiction over the matters raised, essentially “passing the buck.”

QUESTIONS:

1. Putting aside the merits of the disclosures made by whistleblowers. Is there an ethics question in regard to the way Christiane Ouimet’s office carried out its duties? Why or why not?
2. Assume an ethical dilemma exists. Examine the list of ethical dilemmas in your text. Which might apply in this case?
3. Given the official explanations for the handling of disclosures, where would you classify Ms. Ouimet’s moral development? Why?
4. Let’s explore one of the reasons why Ms. Ouimet’s office exists – to investigate disclosures provided by whistleblowers. Among the allegations against her (see related article), are claims she met, or tried to meet, with top government officials. Why is this a problem? How might it potentially affect whistleblowing?

SOURCE: L. Martin, “Former Integrity Commissioner Swept Aside Disclosures of Wrongdoing,” Globe and Mail (Retrievable online at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-integrity-commissioner-swept-aside-disclosures-of-wrongdoing/article1918159/)

See related article at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/disgraced-integrity-czars-400000-severance-deal-includes-gag-order/article1930343/