Resignation Pro

Help! Please help me proofread my paper!?

In the case “A Problem at the Housing Authority,” the author is introduced to several t-junctions in his new position as Executive Director of a County Housing Authority. The critical t-junctions involve a ring of corruption taking place amongst appointed government officials, and negligence and the misappropriation of state and federal dollars. Because the circumstances do not easily outweigh the individual’s response, the appointee is not sure how to respond. I believe that leaking is possibly is the best response to corruption encountered by the appointee. I would likely move out of the city, whistle blow, and then submit a resignation letter. This case study attempts to highlight the critical t-junctions while explaining why leaking would be the best solution to the aforementioned dilemma. Comparisons are created using “George Shultz and the Iran-Contra Affair” and “Agent Rowley Blows the Whistle” to illuminate each concept. The prospects of power are charming and seductive while its realities are often hidden by those who wish to maintain it. The first t-junction provides a clear example: here the author is appointed by a board of directors who are made up of financial contributors to the state governor's election campaign. This obviously represents a serious conflict in interest on the part of the governor and the appointed board members. The second t-junction makes clear that the board members, particularly the chairman of the board knowingly engaged in corrupt behavior. The third t-junction occurs when the author discovers that the board secures negotiations with a realty company owned by the chairmans cousins, and the fourth t-junction occurs when the appointee discovers his predecessor was the former campaign manager for the sitting governor. By this t-junction the appointee had an opportunity to distance himself from the corruption by explicitly rejecting such behavior but did not do so out of fear of his own safety. Each t-junction helped to explain a host of additional corruptions (t-junctions) taking place including: the hiring of a resident to monitor the appointee's home; the chairman of the board unsuccessful attempt to sale the appointee a house at an obscenely low price, and the overall negligence taking place within the organization (the organization was on the verge of bankruptcy when the author was originally appointed). The seductive and charming aspects of power led the author to accept a position before doing his homework. This led him to a world of politics characterized by corruption, negligence and nepotism. My opinion is that that the appointee made a wise decision by consulting with a lawyer and considering all of his options, including the risk of personal social, and professional endangerment. Based on the options discussed with the attorney, Leaking appears to be the appointee's best option. Walking away would have forced the appointee to compromise his moral values and whist blowing could compromise his safety and future career in politics. In the beginning of the text the appointee makes clear that confrontation is not his style, and discussion may not have been a considerable option since he did not know which board members were involved. Leaking is clearly the best option here. The chairman already knew that the appointee was aware of the various scandals taking place. The appointee had the option of sending anonymous letters to local and state representatives revealing his findings. The appointee also had the option to meet personally with an elected official who could champion the matter which may have led him into the clear. His safest option would be to find a different place to work in order to safe guard his personal safety. It is important that the appointee stay true to himself by maintaining his prior level of integrity. The author must be careful to not allow his circumstances to champion his personal credibility. Agent Rowly and George Slutz blew the whistle for different reason. Rowley blew the whistle to bring attention to deficiencies with the FBI while Slutz made public statements in order to disassociate himself from the Iran-Contra affair. While it is true that Rowley and Slutz each had over 15 years of experience in their perspective fields, each found a way to maintain their level of individual responsibility. The appointee must find a creative solution for maintaining his individual level of responsibility. He must understand, most importantly, that there are no definitive solutions. He must be prepared to win and lose no matter what the results may be

Public Comments

1. Good paper. If you are looking for grammar and punctuation here goes...1.board of directors COMPRISED of financial contributors. 2. Serious conflict OF interest- 3. particularly the chairman of the board, use comma after 4. corruption, negligence, and nepotism use comma 5. personal, social, and professional 6.leaking, no capital letter 7.moral values and WHISTLE blowing- you forgot the LE 8.safest option WOULD HAVE BEEN, not would be 9.blew the whistle for A different reason 10.results may be. Use period at end of sentence. These are in the order I found them. Hope this helped. Good Luck. Well done!