The State of Nirvana
The state of Nirvana was formed as the 51st state of the United States of America
in 2010 after California decided to split in two. The northern part of the state became the
State of Nirvana and it chose San Francisco as its Capitol city. In what was perceived as
a “slap in the face,” Sacramento, the former Capitol of California, seceded from the old
California and became part of Nevada. To the south, California retained its status as a
state with Los Angeles as its Capitol. The then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
remained the governor of California while the activist leader, Blissful Peace, became the
governor of the state of Nirvana.
It wasn’t long after Blissful Peace took office that scandal emerged in the state
Legislature. It was reported that a state senator used a private aircraft for personal trips
and accepted a payment for a speech to an antiwar group. One state representative was
accused of using her office to benefit family members financially and promote business
for family members. A second state representative allegedly used favoritism in awarding
a contract to provide organically grown fruits and vegetables to all schools in Nirvana as
part of its healthy lunch program.
Blissful was not very peaceful when she heard about the charges. She ordered a
full investigation by her ethics officer with a report in writing to be provided in one
month. During that month an investigator for the ethics office discovered the following:
State senator Dubious Dan had traveled to the Redwood Forest using a private
helicopter provided by “Friends of the Earth.”
Dubious Dan received $10,000 for his speech to the group, “End War 4ever.”
1
State representative Connie Conniver solicited funds from the pro nuclear power
group, “Nukes in Nirvana,” that were paid to her husband, Harold Helpless, to
fund his vegetarian restaurant in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. In
all, $55,000 was paid to Helpless and the allegation was made by some reporters
for the San Francisco Sunshine that the payment was to influence Conniver’s vote
to build a nuclear power plant along the Mendocino county coast.
State representative Bill Bias in his role as chair of the Food and Nutrition
Committee made final recommendations to the entire legislature on contracts for
food supply to the schools in Nirvana. Bias reviewed state agency
recommendations and either supported them or independently sought alternative
proposals based on which he selected the primary food contractor. Bias allegedly
overturned the Department of Health’s recommendation to award the contract to
Bristolite Farms to supply fresh fruit and vegetables to Nirvana schools. Bias
awarded the contract to a start-up fresh fruit and vegetable business owned by his
sister-in-law.
To assist in writing its report to Governor Blissful Peace, the state’s ethics office
gathered the following information from the State Ethics Code:
Travel Payments
The term “travel payment” includes payments, advances, or reimbursements for
travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence.
The following types of travel are prohibited:
2
1. Transportation provided to legislators directly in connection with an event at
which a legislator gives a speech, participates in a panel or seminar, or
provides similar service.
2. Free admission, refreshments, and similar non-cash nominal benefits provided
to a legislator during the entire event at which the legislator gives a speech,
participates in a panel or seminar, or provides a similar service.
3. Necessary lodging and subsistence including means and beverages, provided
to a legislator directly in connection with an event at which a speech is given,
a panel or seminar discussion, or a similar service is provided. However, in
most cases, the exclusion for meals and beverages is limited to those provided
on the day of the activity.
4. Reimbursements for travel expenses provided to a legislator by a bona fide
non-profit, tax-exempt entity for which the legislator provides equal or greater
consideration.
Honoraria
An “honorarium” is any payment made in consideration for any speech given,
article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting,
social event, meal, or like gathering.
No state elected official or a candidate for state office may accept honoraria
payments.
Gifts
A “gift” is any payment or other benefit provided to a legislator that confers a
personal benefit for which the legislator does not provide goods or services of equal or
3
greater value. You have “received” or “accepted” a gift when you know that you have
actual possession of the gift or when you take any action exercising direction or control
over the gift, including discarding the gift or turning it over to another person.
Elected state legislators and heads of a state government agency may not accept
gifts from any single source more than $200 in any calendar year. This includes passes or
tickets which provide admission or access to facilities, goods, services or other benefits.
Lobbyists
A “lobbyist” means any natural person who is paid a salary, fee, or is otherwise
compensated for seeking, at the time a gift, honorarium, or the payment of expenses
related to an honorarium event is solicited or offered, to influence the governmental
decision making of, or to encourage passage of, defeat, or modification of any proposal
or recommendation by, a state government legislator or agency head in an official
capacity or the individual’s or employees’ agency.
A lobbyist also means any natural person who is paid a salary, fee, or was
otherwise compensated for seeking and sought, within the 12 months preceding the time
of a gift, honorarium, or the payment of expenses related to an honorarium event is
solicited or offered, to influence the governmental decision making of , or to encourage
of passage of, defeat, or modification of any proposal or recommendation by, a state
government legislator or agency head in an official capacity or the individual’s or
employees’ agency.
One is “seeking to influence” or “seeking to encourage” when one has the intent
to affect a decision, proposal, or recommendation and takes any action that directly or
indirectly furthers or communicates one’s intention. A purely informational request made
4
to a state legislator or agency head and not included in any way to directly or indirectly
affect a decision, proposal, or recommendation of a legislator or officer or employee of
an agency, does not constitute seeking to influence government decision making or
seeking to encourage the passage, defeat, or modification of a proposal or
recommendation. The following are prohibited in dealing with lobbyists:
1. A legislator or procurement employee is prohibited from soliciting any gift,
food, or beverage from a lobbyist who lobbies the individual or from a
political action committee, where such gift, food, or beverage is for the
personal benefit of the legislator or an employee connected with that person’s
function, another procurement employee, or any parent, spouse, child, or
sibling of the legislator or employee.
2. This prohibition does not apply to gifts solicited from a relative of the
legislator or procurement employee, regardless of whether the relative is a
lobbyist or the partner, employer, or principal of a lobbyist.
3. A legislator or procurement employee, or any other person on the legislator’s
or procurement employee’s behalf, is prohibited from knowingly accepting,
directly or indirectly, a gift from a lobbyist who lobbies the individual or from
a political action committee, or directly or indirectly on behalf of the lobbyist
or partner, firm, principal or employer of such lobbyist, if the individual
knows or reasonably believes the gift has a value in excess of $200.
Nepotism
Nepotism is favoritism shown by elected officials to relatives, especially in hiring,
awarding of contracts or related activities. Those included in prohibited nepotism
5
relationships are any business associate, parent, spouse, child, or sibling of the legislator
or employee.
Nepotism must be avoided in the award and administration of procurement
actions. In some cases it can be avoided through recusal or similar means. In other cases
it may be difficult to mitigate at all, and officials should ensure that the procurement
process is not used in a manner that would subject the integrity of elected officials to any
question on the basis of nepotism.
This case looks at conflicts of interest, influence and appearances.
Ethical Issues
A new 51st state is determining policies. As the politicians’ decisions are examined,
influences, whether directly monies, bribes, gifts, trips, jobs for relatives, can be seen.
The new state drafts policy to define conflicts of interest, bribes, and fraud. The rules
attempt to maintain the independence, in fact and in appearance of the legislators. The
following of rules and laws was a condition for joining the legislature, so not following
the rules is breaking a promise. The required disclosure of some gifts and payments is so
that the public can determine influence. The public and taxpayers have a right to know
who is trying to influence legislation. The public and taxpayers have a right to know if a
legislator is performing job as promised so disclosure of influences and time off from job
are important.
Questions
1. What is the purpose of the state’s ethics restrictions on travel imposed on
members of the legislature? Do you think that Dubious Dan violated the
state’s restrictions on travel? If so, what would you recommend that Dan do
6
to make things right? Why do you suggest that action? If you think Dan did
not violate the travel policy, support your answer with ethical reasoning.
The restrictions on travel are to ensure that trips are not used as a reward or to
influence the legislature; the appearance and in fact independence is threatened by
paid travel from interest groups and lobbyists. Dan’s trip o the Redwood Forest was it
a helicopter trip to see forest from the air or was the helicopter trip to get there faster
than driving. If the purpose of the trip was to gather necessary information, then the
2. What is the danger of accepting an honorarium for making a speech,
publishing an article, attending a public or private convention, meeting, or
social gathering? Be specific and identify the ethical issues surrounding such
an activity. Did Dan violate the state’s honorarium policy? Why or why not?
The danger of accepting an honorarium is again the appearance and in fact
independence of the state official. A subtle problem with giving speeches at meetings
or conventions is that the talk around the speech is listened to, and listening to such
talk can be influence. Even more subtle is the fact that trips and speeches take time
7
3. Answer the following questions from the perspective of the ethics of
Nirvana’s policy.
(a) Why do you think the state of Nirvana has a gift acceptance limitation
of $200? Why not $100 or $500 dollars? What is it that the state is
trying to protect by having such a monetary limitation on the
acceptance of gifts? Would it be better to simply prohibit the
acceptance of any gift no matter how much its value? Why or why
not? Be specific and incorporate the ethical values discussed in
Chapter 1 in answering this question.
Yes, it would be simpler to a rule that states not gifts, but then you have to define what it
a gift and what a “gimme” advertising give away is. If a legislator receives a $.79 pen
with advertising writing on it, there is no question about intention. However, if the
8
(b) What is the purpose of the state’s ethics restrictions on accepting
payments from lobbyists and political action groups? Why do you
think the prohibition extends to the legislator’s parent, spouse, child
or sibling? Do you think Connie Conniver violated the state’s
restrictions on accepting payments from lobbyists? Why or why not?
What is the ethical danger of allowing a member of a state legislature
or state agency head, in that person’s official capacity, to accept
payments or other favors from lobbyists?
The restriction on accepting payments from lobbyists and interests groups is again
the issue of appearance and in fact independence. The restriction extends to
(c) What is the ethical danger of awarding a contract to a family
member? Do you think Bill Bias violated the state’s nepotism rules?
Why or why not? What is the ethical danger of allowing a member of
a state legislature or state agency head to award a contract to a family
member even if that family member can provide the product or
service as well as or better than any other vendor?
The danger of awarding a contract to a family member is that the marketplace will
lose confidence that the system is fair. It is perceived that the award may not have
9
10