Nimish’s family came to Australia when he was young. After being granted citizenship as a teenager Nimish took a greater interest in his new country and his new community in Geelong. He often attended the local council meetings, to “understand what’s happening”, he told his mother. Nimish became recognised by the councillors and the council employees. This led to work experience during high school, and a Work Integrated Learning opportunity as part of his Bachelor of Commerce at Deakin University. This early-age networking opened the door for Nimish to accept a role at the council as a graduate recruit.
His graduate recruitment rotation took him to many teams.
Council rates were the focus of the Revenue team. Rates were more than 80% of Council revenue. Nimish was aware of that there was strong resistance in the community to increases in council rates. Councillors were very aware of this and were always pushing back on the council employees when the subject of rate increases was raised.
In the Commercial Development team the topic of all conversations was how the Council would respond to the decline in manufacturing activity in the area. One of the region’s long-term employers had closed in recent years. The old factory site was on prime land, close to excellent road and rail links. The local business community was lobbying hard for their 21st Century Manufacturing plan which wanted to attract sunrise industries to the city.
The vacant manufacturing site was also a hot topic in the Social Services team. They were under huge pressure following the closure of the manufacturing plant. The community had lost several hundred jobs and, apart from the ravages of unemployment, there were increasing reports of domestic violence and substance abuse which were of increasing concern and placing significant demands on the team. Recent reports of increasing school absenteeism was also adding to the problems in the area. The budget of the Social Services team had not increased in line with the demands, which was causing added stress in the team. They were keen for a “Community Hub” to be built on the old manufacturing site. This could become a community focus and help provide productive opportunities for the community which was struggling with the transition.
The Environmental Services team were responsible for parks and gardens and ecological sustainability in the region. They were keen for the manufacturing site to be given over to a “wild park” that would provide a recreation area in the deprived community, and habitat for native animals which were battling with loss of habitat in the region. Part of their plan was for the site to be part of the city’s green belt and clean air proposals. For them health and well-being was a critical quality of life issue, and also a way to minimise health care costs in the region.
The Planning Department was being pushed hard on what to do with the manufacturing site. Apart from the intense lobbying from Commercial, Social Service and Environment departments the Revenue team had weighed in saying there was no extra funds available for managing the site. If the Council was to spend money on the site they would have to take it from the budget of one or more of the other teams. The Revenue team were advocating for the proposal from a development consortium who wanted to build hundreds of townhouses on the site. With the region growing there was increasing demand for apartments and townhouses. A prime site had huge appeal and, they added, would add millions of dollars each year to the Council budget, which might provide the means for dealing with some of the claims of the other teams.
In this assignment, you’ll be applying your learning about ethics and ethical decision-making to an authentic case, as you’ve been doing in the weekly seminars. Coming to an understanding of your own ethical approach and how others have theorized ethics is important for all professionals.
Write your analysis as if you were writing to a prospective employer. That means your word choice, the terminology you use, your spelling and punctuation, and the structure of each response must be appropriate for a professional, and well-informed, audience. This is important to keep in mind as you draft, edit, and proofread your responses.
You will be given two case studies to examine. You must choose ONE and answer ALL five questions about the case.
The structure of this task aligns with both the Baird decision-making model and the AAA model and thus helps you demonstrate achievement of learning outcomes 1, 2 & 3.
The case study for this assignment is in the CloudDeakin site – Resources > Assessment Resources >Case study AT2.
You are required to choose ONE of the case studies. For your chosen case, respond in no less than 1800 words and no more than 2,000 words to the FIVE (5) questions, below. Ensure you draw on normative ethical theories in answering these questions as well as a wide range of other unit materials.
1: What is an ethical issue in this case?
In answering this question, consider how you’ll frame the ethical issue through attending to the context, making clear the facts and assumptions of the case and identifying and exploring the issues in tension (that is, the tension between rationality and sensibility and between autonomy and equality). You must also identify a moral agent. Who is making an ethical decision in this case? These are just some of the questions you can use to start formulating a response to this question. Don’t be bound by these questions, but use them as a prompt to your thinking.
2: What are the ethical boundaries in this case – the norms, principles and values relevant to the case?
In answering this question, you must identify the stakeholders, both those directly and those indirectly affected by the decision. What are the interests of the moral agent and the various stakeholders in this case? What are the competing ethical values and principles that underlie the ethical conflict? Use these questions to prompt your thinking. There are a host of other questions you could ask yourself as you prepare your response. Draw on the unit materials to help you explore this question.
3: List alternative courses of action and the consequences of each possible course of action.
In answering this question, you must determine what is accurate and trustworthy in the information you have available to you. Use your knowledge of the ethical lenses and normative theory to substantiate your suggestions for courses of action. Don’t forget to consider the consequences of each course of action.
4: Identify the best course of action from the alternatives discussed in question 3 and justify that decision. What makes this the best possible ethical choice for this situation?
In answering this question, outline how this choice is consistent with the norms, values and principles identified in question 2, and how you have corrected for bias. Describe how you would evaluate this decision. Drawing on unit materials and wider reading will help you respond fully to this question.
5: What are the responsibilities of a financial professional in this situation and in whatways have your responses so far demonstrated these responsibilities?
In answering this question, you might draw on the literature you’ve read on being a professional andconsider in whose interests financial professionals work. To whom do financial professionals haveresponsibility?
Once you have familiarised yourself with the case, respond to each of the five questions. We’re expecting to see your ethical approach and views represented in your responses. If you use others’ ideas and/or words, ensure you reference them correctly.
1. Please monitor CloudDeakin for any instructions/announcements related to the assignment.
2. This is an Individual assignment (there is no group option).
3. Learning Outcome 2 is linked with GLO 2: Communication. This means your capacity to communicate in writing will be assessed. Ensure you proofread thoroughly before submission.
4. While there are no right or wrong answers, it is important to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes through your responses.
5. If you feel sub-headings will help the clarity of your submission, feel free to use them. Subheadings will not be counted in the word count.
6. As with all university assignments, when you use others’ words and ideas you must acknowledge them using Harvard referencing conventions.
7. If you choose not to submit a response you will score zero – no marks will be added to the final examination result.
8. NOTE: The submission Due Date is Monday 9 September, 2019 before 9:00 am (AEST).
9. The Dropbox will remain open for late submissions. A penalty of 5% of total marks per day will be applied. Late submissions after 5 days will not be marked as per Faculty Policy.
10. Submit/upload your assignment to the relevant Assignment Dropbox under the Assessments tab.