As I write this post, the verdict has been announced in the George Zimmerman trial and the tragic events that occurred in Florida . Divides in America have been made a little deeper and a little wider. It is all sad and no one has really won. 
However there is another story that is emerging from the tragedy; a story that speaks to ethics and one that has been steamrolled. Let us discuss a man who worked as a director in the IT department of the Florida State Attorney General’s office; these are the individuals who prosecuted the case.
Discovery
The way I understand it, if I am a lawyer who represents either the prosecution or the defense, there is a procedure I can follow to obtain documents, answers given during interrogation, depositions and all sorts of evidence from the other side. Even if the other side doesn’t want to give me the information, there are legal motions to help me gain the materials.
If the evidence I hold might be damaging to my case when the other side examines it, I must still give it up. For example if the accused or the victim has several images on their cell phone that may be of interest to the case, both sides have the right to view those images.
Suppose however, one side hides evidence. What then? This appears to be the case with a man who has become a whistle-blowing hero to some and untrustworthy to others. His name is Ben Kruidbos, but on a long-term basis, the issue is not at all about him.
The Truth Has a Price
On June 6, 2013, during a hearing, Mr. Kruidbos shared some information that the prosecution (the State Attorney General’s Office) did not want him to share. He shared at the hearing that the state attorney general was not complying with discovery rules. In this case images and text messages on Mr. Martin’s cell phone not given over to the defense.
According to Associated Press and Fox News reports (July 15, 2013): “The Orlando Sentinel reports Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey’s office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he ‘can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.’
However, it didn’t end at that point. To continue:
“…the Associated Press reports that Kruidbos received the pink slip Thursday, which accused him of misconduct and ‘violating numerous state attorney’s office policies and procedures.’”
Let us move away from this case, and talk about a theoretical small town in upstate New York.
You love this town and you have seen it struggle. You know its struggles better than most because you work in the town’s finance department. You are trying to figure out why the roads department is so far over its budget. The purchasing department has told you there were unexpected manufacturing expenses.
You are working very late one snowy evening. The lights in your office are dim and you see an odd sight. The director of purchasing for the town is meeting in the empty parking lot with the sales representative for the snow plow company. You think you see an envelope changing hands, but you’re not sure.
The next day you are so puzzled by what you have seen, you meet with your supervisor. The two of you have been working together for awhile and you believe you have a great working relationship, but she abruptly tells you:
“I am ordering you to leave it alone; you’re going to open up a mess of problems.”
You try to politely ask “why,” but you are met with a glare. “Forget what you saw,” she says.
The legitimate question is: Would you leave it alone? It is hard to find a new job in the town. You might have to move away. Still, would you blow the whistle?
It is not always easy to do the ethical thing.
Be Transparent
Whether you work for the State Attorney General’s office in Florida or a small town in upstate New York, there are standards of excellence and there should be expectations of ethical behavior.
If those guidelines are made clear and if employees are allowed to ethically function the organization will thrive. If those guidelines are blurred and each ethical challenge is relative to a changing set of ethics, no one wins.
The whistleblower must be allowed to speak and there must be a system in place that recognizes that right. The employee must be protected. I don’t know what happened in Florida, but I am willing to guess that the whistleblower tried to tell someone that something wasn’t right. No one would listen.
Ethics has nothing to do with politics, agendas or pressures; it has everything to do with the right thing.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
