home news sports culture ideas up-to-date

You are viewing
Volume 38 Issue 3
October 3, 2000

To return to the current issue please click here.

Vice chancellor, faculty at odds in ethics debate

BY ANDREW LONG
© MESA LEGEND
Submitted October 3, 2000

Maricopa Community College District employees, including MCC faculty, are calling a $100,000 contract with an ethics consulting firm flawed and a waste of money.

The Institute for Global Ethics, based in Camden, Maine, signed the $94,300 contract Sept. 8, to provide a code of ethics and a training program for the district. The contract is the project of a larger district risk assessment project that began last November.

"It looks like we flushed $100,000 down the toilet... We got a lemon. We got taken." BARRY VAUGHAN Instructor

"I don't think the cost is excessive." RUFUS GLASPER MCCD Vice Chancellor of Fiscal & Budget

The MCCD Governing Board approved the expenditure during its Aug. 8 meeting, however, the board lowered the amount of $150,000 to not more than $100,000.

Criticism of the project surfaced two weeks ago as a flurry of e-mails on a district discussion group after full-time employees received the first part of the project in the form of a survey.

Rufus Glasper, vice chancellor for business services and director of the project, added fuel to the fire when he responded to the e-mails by describing the ultimate goal of the project as “safeguarding district assets.” While he said he meant “district assets,” to reflect all aspects of the district, some employees said this statement gave the appearance  that the district was more interested in protecting its physical assets, rather than creating an ethics guideline.

Although MCC employees said they support an ethics statement, they had concerns about the way the district was handling the project.

 “It looks like we’ve flushed $100,000 down the toilet,” MCC philosophy instructor Barry Vaughan said.

Although Vaughan sent in his survey, he said he was confused about the goals of the district and the credibility of the company hired to facilitate the project. “There is a broad consensus around the district that this was a complete and utter boondoggle. We got a lemon. We got taken.”

According to Glasper, the project began in November 1999, when a district-wide group of employees discussed a list of perceived risks to the district.

Glasper said he fully supports the project and welcomes the criticism. “I don’t think the cost is excessive,” Glasper said. “People are concerned that a lot of e-mails are going back and forth. I think it’s fantastic. We’ve had more dialogue about ethics in this district in a two-week  period than we’ve ever had since the time I’ve been here, for almost 15 years.”

Glasper said his first discussion with the Institute was after he received  an invitation to attend an April 26 Honors Forum at Phoenix College where the president of the company, Rushworth Kidder, was speaking on “Global Ethics for the New Millennium.”

Kidder, former senior editor and columnist for the Christian Science Monitor, formed the nonsectarian, nonpartisan think tank in 1990.

Glasper said he contacted  Kidder a month or two before the forum and arranged for him to meet with the Governing Board and some administrative groups April 25, to give a five-hour workshop on ethics. After this meeting and with the board’s approval, the Institute submitted a proposal June 7, to develop the code of ethics for the district.

According to Mike McIntier, purchasing manager for the district, the proposal for an ethics policy was not sent out for a bidding process.

District purchasing policy states any services of $25,000 or greater are required to be purchased through sealed competitive  proposals. The exception to this is when the district determines the service or product is “sole source,” or unique enough not to warrant  bidding. The policy also states, “sole source procurement shall be avoided whenever  possible,” and also that amounts under $25,000 shall be made with as much competition as is practical and deemed necessary by the purchasing manager.

McIntier said Glasper had submitted the request that the contract be considered sole source, but it was the purchasing department who made the decision.

In a July 17 memo, McIntier stated his decision was based on the “unique background and experience” the Institute had in completing a similar project for the Illinois Community College system.

The Institute divides its efforts into corporate services, education programs, and public policy programs. Their funding comes from private foundations, from members and sponsors, and from such fee-for-service activities  as ethics training seminars, lectures, sales of publications and consulting.

The Institute was hired by the Illinois colleges to conduct a survey on Illinois residents’ attitudes and values related to the teaching of values and ethics and help incorporate that information into the curriculum.

After compiling the data, the Institute released a report entitled “Survey of Ethics and Values in Illinois.”

Steve Morse, director of marketing and public information for the Illinois college system, said the survey worked well. Morse said the $185,000 project was paid for by a grant from the Illinois state legislature.

Because of this survey and report, McIntier said it would be mutually beneficial for the Maricopa district and the Institute to work together.  “If you’re buying a certain specific knowledge, generally those folks are going to say ‘working with you adds to my repertoire.’” McIntier said he would not have signed the contract if he didn’t feel comfortable with the sole source designation.

But, employees have criticized the use of a survey to develop an ethics statement  and the Institute’s lack of philosophers and trained ethics professionals on their staff.

Leonard O’Brian, a religious studies instructor from Scottsdale Community College, said in an e-mail the Illinois survey and report doesn’t “reflect an awareness of the crucial role in ethics of careful, analytical thought that is informed by the work of western and non-western philosophers.”

He added, “We can hope...that credentialed  ethicist(s) are at work behind the scenes.”

John Seims, an MCC math instructor was concerned about the development of an ethics policy through the use of such a survey and suggested that the resources within the district could have been tapped to create the ethics code.

Seims also criticized the district for a lack of feedback to the e-mails. “If feedback was important to them then this probably should have been an issue earlier on.”

Vaughan agreed. “It’s incumbent on them to give the argument on why this is necessary and that’s what has not been forthcoming.”

Gene Eastin, president of the Governing Board said he stands behind the district’s decision to spend the money and supports an ethics statement for the district. Eastin also supports the hiring of the Institute and said it was as good a group as the district could get.

“In the grand scheme of things, I don’t think $100,000 is too much money for an organization as big as ours to spend on something as important as this,” Eastin said.

As for the criticism, he said, “I would be surprised if there wasn’t any opposition.”

Paula Mirk, vice president of education for the Institute said, “We have terrific results in Illinois and I think that’s why they are interested at Maricopa.

“A code of ethics is not a law, it’s not something you’re going to prescribe. It’s something you agree upon.”

Although no employees suggested a boycott of the survey, Mirk said the more people who fill it out the better. “We can’t regulate that. It’s up to the individual.”

Vaughan suggested the district should scrap the project, if it’s not too late, and consider an ethics board similar to ones found in hospitals and medical schools.

Back to Top | Previous Page | Home