Policy Vs. Procedure And Policy Case Study

Recently I was faced with the following question, “If you were told to do something by a superior that you knew was procedurally wrong, would you do it?” I’m sure this question would confuse anyone with having to choose right from wrong. When asked, my brain started moving fast, like the wheels on a locomotive; however, my thought process was slower than sand in an hour glass. I wanted to make sure that I gave the correct answer without having to jeopardize my commitment to ethics. I began to think, “If I say, ‘Yes’ would my character be questioned?” but, “If I say, ‘No’ would this person think I was being insubordinate?” To answer the question, one must consider policy versus procedure and then somewhere in the middle, lay the legality. There …show more content…
Procedure is the way in which you carry out the policy. In my current position as a Hearing Officer for the State of California, I have the authority to suspend or revoke a person’s driver’s license. I do have a wide range of authority including the type of sanction I impose and as a golden rule a hearing officer’s decision should not be swayed by their superiors. However, recently I have been told that some of my decisions are too harsh and although I am adhering to policy, there have been attempts to persuade my decisions. In this particular case, there is a conflict between the public administrator and the authority. Three of the most common conflicts of administrative responsibility that are experienced are conflicts of authority, role conflicts, and conflicts of interest (94). My responsibility as a hearing officer is to hold administrative hearings while being fair and impartial. My role is to make a decision based on facts in evidence that are in the interest of public safety; however, the conflict of interest occurs when a superior tells me or suggests not imposing an immediate action and considering other options. In this type of case we have conflicts of subjective and objective responsibility in which the authority (the boss) is imposing an objective responsibility that conflicts with our subjective responsibility …show more content…
This means that I must adhere to both the hypothetical imperative in respects to ethical behavior; however, when administering the law, I have to take into consideration what Kant refers to as the categorical imperative wherein I make decisions without thinking about the consequences or the impact that it may have on the respondent. For example, if a person is arrested for driving under the influence and at the hearing, the burden is not shifted, I will take an action to suspend the respondent’s driving privilege without consideration to mitigating factors or the hardship that a suspended license may cause. In essence, my position requires that I balance the hypothetical and the categorical imperative while being fair and impartial in a position as a judge and while being a public servant with regards to ethical