Part One: Economic Interest
Based on a careful evaluation of the two companies from a perspective of ethics, the only logical conclusion is that Jane has an economic interest in both Justin and Associates, Inc. and Wolmertech. In the context, economic interest means that the financial gain or losses of the organization have an impact on the finances of Janet (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). With regard to Justin and Associates Inc., Janet definitively and directly had an economic interest. As a full-time employee, Janet draws in the very least wages and allowances from the company. Depending on the nature of the company, Jane may also be getting bonuses and other benefits tied directly to the success of the company. Therefore, it is in the interest of Janet that the company continues to operate so that she can continue earning. The success of the company can also mean a promotion or a bonus for Janet.
On the other hand, whereas Janet’s economic interest in Wolmertech is not definitive, it does exist. Janet’s husband has a stake worth a thousand dollars in the company. Whereas Janet may not be directly connected to the company, under normal circumstances, she benefits from her husband’s earnings as they share family pecuniary obligations. Conversely, Janet stands a good chance of taking over her husband’s shares or a part thereof in the case of a divorce or if her husband passes on (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). Janet thus stands to benefit or lose respectively depending on the fortunes of Wolmertech.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Part II: If Janet Should Make Decisions Regarding the Two Companies
From the perspective of ethics, due to the economic interest that Janet has in the two companies, she should not make decisions or vote in matters that directly affect the two companies. The first reason for the same is the presence of a conflict of interest on the part of Janet with regard to the two companies. As a member of the board of a state regulatory agency in Florida, Janet should consider the interests of all Floridians equally. However, her interests in the two companies may override the interests of other Floridians if the decision directly affects one of the two companies. It is for the same explanation above that the issue of impartiality should prevent Janet from handling issues affecting the two companies or voting about them in the said regulatory agency. It is important to note that the existence of a conflict of interest does not automatically mean that Janet is impartial. However, the fact that a reasonable third party may consider her to be impartial is good enough to exclude her from making such decisions (Bailey, 2018).
The third reason why Janet should not participate in or vote on issues relating to the two companies is to avoid any semblance of lack of impropriety. By definition, impropriety can be defined congruently with integrity with its absence amounting to corruption. Once again, the argument is not meant to cast aspersions of the character of Janet as it is possible for her to be objective even when dealing with the two companies. However, for every regulatory body to succeed, it must both have integrity and be deemed to have integrity by those who are affected by its decisions (Bailey, 2018). Janet’s decisions or votes in issues affecting companies that affect her economically can easily be misconstrued as biased. To avoid the complications that such a situation can create, it is safer for Janet not to participate in such processes.
Finally, due to matters relating to the media, Janet should avoid getting connected with issues that affect the two companies. Indeed, it is possible for the media to indict Janet whichever way she votes with regard to the two companies. If she votes favourably, it can be argued that the vote was based on a desire for personal economic benefit. If she votes to the detriment of either of the companies, it can be argued that the vote or decision is based on a personal grudge (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). It is better if Janet abstained from any such decision or vote.
References
Bailey, S. K. (2018). Ethics and the public service. In Classics of Administrative Ethics (pp. 63-78). Routledge.
Frederickson, H. G., & Rohr, J. A. (2015). Ethics and Public Administration . New York: Routledge.
