Judith Green is a metro councilwoman of Western Louisville, District 1, and she lives in Louisville, Ky 40210. In the year 2007, she was appointed by the Louisville council as a councilwoman.
Some of her unethical behaviors include failure to pay taxes, fraud, dishonesty and enticement. In December 2010, Louisville District council saw the need to censor Green’s behavior and is now facing ethical accusations (Stanwick & Johnson, 2009, p. 256).
Conflict at the Macro Level
Judy Green and her spouse, James had fallen short of paying property duties on their quarters from the year 1997 to the year 2003 which totaled to almost $10000 though they cleared it up just before Green’s interrogation. This was based on the accounts with the Jefferson Region Sherriff’s headquarters. The records further showed that Green had a due balance of unpaid professional license cost of about $2000.
Other accusations of $3500 city finances were lacking which she also settled prior to her interview. Furthermore, this couple had not reimbursed lots of dollars in learner finances. According to the council, there were no records for $28,270 grant finance and Green owed large amounts of cash in national income levies. Her fiscal problem, however, continued during her tenure (Howes, 2003, p. 133).
Conflict at the Micro Level
Green is unethical at the micro level. When the council finances a summer occupation programme for teenagers in her district she ends up recruiting 12 of her family members.
Green, however, has been covering her unethical misconduct with her commendable service for the fortification and support of disabled children. To cover up for all this debts, Green explained to the council that it was her spouse who was in charge of managing the family funds while she looked after their 13 children. She further added that 11 of the children were espoused and had exceptional needs.
She explained that her family had been looking after 30 children who were uncared for. It is unethical that Green practices nepotism. Her family members obtained about 10% percent of finances from employment programmes in the council. Her partner, James got a reimbursement from the program, and no person is aware of this amount (Stanwick & Johnson, 2009, p. 256).
Green allegedly had a programme valued at a million USD per year. This program was publicized as being for the unfortunate children. It is, therefore, questionable how any of her offspring or relatives qualified in this program. Green argued that only eight of her family members, including children and adopted children, formed part of this program.
She also argued that her husband had assisted in its supervision with no pay. This is, however, untrue since we are told that he got a payment from the program though no one knows the amount. The fact that Green chooses to stay with so many children is unethical since this raises the question of the care they received.
An explanation of how to proceed with the negotiation process
Judy Nadler, who is currently a superior member of government ethics, asserts that Greens fiscal troubles can be seen through unsuccessful communal service. The commission of ethics should plan a hearing of the filed complaints against Judy Green.
This complaint should be adjusted in such a way that it entails all accusations against Green. The commission must make a verdict 30 days following the hearing.
Green’s case should be well monitored in the media and a bipartisan morals transformation package be introduced. It should be ensured that this is not incapacitated by the democrats and especially Judy Green. A modified negotiation ethics regulation should also be passed (Howes, 2003, p. 133).
The community through this ordinance should be permitted to follow Judy Green’s case to see whether the council is serious on ethics reorganization. According to the community, Judy Green should not be allowed to get away from sanctions for her palpable ethical failings.
The Districts Metro Police Unit should seriously investigate the assertions of criminal doings by Council Woman Green. Investigations should be done and sufficient evidence acquired. This evidence will be used to determine whether to go about prosecuting Green or acquit her of all charges.
It should be established whether the living conditions for the adopted children convene to the required housing principles. It should also be established whether the children have a person responsible for them or if they are left to fend for themselves. The council should determine the fate of children living in Green’s home. More research should be done regarding the conduct and family life of this councilwoman (Howes, 2003, p. 133).
Howes, D. (2003). American women: the official who’s who among the women of the nation. Chicago: Marquis.
Stanwick, A., & Johnson, M. (2009). Women in public office: a biographical directory. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press.