Rules, Decisions, and Consequences

January 6, 2012 - By Eric Gakstatter

This week, I’m pleased to present to you the third essay in a series by Earl F. Burkholder: educator, professional land surveyor, and professional engineer. Earl and I have been sharing thoughts since we had a chance to sit down and talk at the 2010 ACSM/GITA annual meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.

By way of background, Earl is a surveying engineering educator who retired in July 2010. Licensed both as a professional engineer and as a professional surveyor, his career includes five years working for an international engineering firm, 13 years teaching at Oregon’s Institute of Technology, 12 years at New Mexico State University, and being self-employed for five years during which time he incorporated Global COGO, Inc., to promote use of 3D digital spatial data via the global spatial data model (GSDM). He wrote a book, “The 3D Global Spatial Data Model: Foundation of the Spatial Data Infrastructure,” which was published by CRC Press in April 2008.

His education includes a BSCE from the University of Michigan, a MSCE from Purdue University, and sabbatical study at the University of Maine, Orono. He served two four-year (non-consecutive) terms as editor of the ASCE Journal of Surveying Engineering and has been involved in the ABET accreditation process since the early 1990s. He was chair of the ABET Related Accreditation Commission (now known as the Applied Science Accreditation Commission) in 2000-2001. As of October 1, 2011, he is chair of the ASCE Geomatics Division (GMD) Executive Committee.

Rules, Decisions, and Consequences

(Is there really more than one set of rules?)

The first essay in this series asked the question, “Does the ability/authority to do something justify doing it?” The second essay looked at “Elements of the decision-making process” and asks “Is it necessary or possible to legislate morality?” This essay looks at rules, decisions, and consequences and asks, “Is there is one set of rules for individuals and another set of rules for businesses, corporations, and governmental entities?” Looking back at the previous article, the apparent answer is ‘yes’ – one set of rules governs personal decisions based upon values while non-personal decisions are made in the context of laws/authority. But that raises more questions. Since all decisions – personal, business, governmental, or corporate – are made by individuals (personally and/or collectively), in what way can accountability for a given decision be established? The path to personal accountability based on values is quite straightforward – “the buck stops here.” In the non-personal arena the criteria are different. Here an individual is responsible directly to the organizational hierarchy but is otherwise largely isolated from personal accountability¹. Within an organization and depending upon circumstances, a person is accountable to the foreman who is accountable to the project manager and on up the line to the Vice President, to the CEO, to the Board of Directors, and ultimately to the stockholders. Isolation of personal accountability is much the same in the governmental arena same except that ultimate responsibility rests with the voter – individuals speaking with a collective voice. And that brings us back full circle to the legislating morality question. Admittedly the scenario just described is a gross over-simplification but it serves to help clarify the context of choices made by humans.

¹Choices here may not be easy. In the movie, “A Few Good Men” starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson (1992), two soldiers were on trial for the death of a third. As it turns out, the two were following orders of their Commanding Officer who had ordered a “code red.” They were not convicted of murder but sentenced to a dishonorable discharge. Upon hearing the verdict, one soldier turned to the other and asked, “What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.” His buddy replied, “Yeah we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.”

The more I’ve looked at various issues, the more I realize that honest open discussion is an essential part of finding appropriate answers. I quite agree that, in many cases, answers are not singularly “right” or “wrong” but, of necessity, solutions must include elements from conflicting positions – compromise. Therefore, I will continue asking questions with the expectation that others will also ponder the issues and that subsequent discussion of various perspectives will contribute to a broader understanding of the issues. The unproven presumption here is that an improved understanding of the issues is a prerequisite to finding acceptable solutions. Recent Congressional, legislative, and bureaucratic stalemates could probably be used to dis-prove that presumption.

The on-going LightSquared debate provides the context for my comments. I recently listened to the webinar moderated by Alan Cameron of GPS World in which Javad Ashjaee and Eric Gakstatter discussed current LightSquared issues. Javad summarized various technical issues while Eric raised questions primarily of concern to users in the GPS precise surveying user community. And, reading a recent (December 2011) press release from the Coalition to Save Our GPS, I am lead to believe that LightSquared is unequivocally committed to having their way in the establishment of the ground-based transmitter 4G network. A press release by LightSquared dated December 14, 2011, quotes LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja as saying “LightSquared has had the legal and regulatory right to use its spectrum for eight years over two administrations.”

As I became aware of the LightSquared debate last spring and the learned about the possibility of detrimental impact on precise GPS surveying operations, my first reaction was quite simple – spectrum rights should be re-allocated to avoid conflicting uses. However, as I learned more about the issues, I realized that simple answers are not that simple. I am reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell (1959), “It is one of the rarest gifts to be able to hold a view with conviction and detachment at the same time.” Therefore, I feel obligated to look at both sides of an issue before committing to a position. I was under the weather the first weekend in July 2011 and spent most of two days in bed. It was during that time of forced rest that I tried to sort out and understand the underlying LightSquared issues. It did not take long to realize that I needed more information and that the ideas I wanted to share could not be conveyed in a single article. That is when and how I settled on this series of six essays. Although the LightSquared debate continues to evolve and a reasoned position may be somewhat fluid, I press on in my attempts to “flush out” the underlying questions formulated last July.

This third essay considers the impact of two different sets of rules used in guiding decisions. I find it instructive to look at consequences of not following the rules, both personal and non-personal. In the first essay I stated that I naïvely believe each person should and will act responsibly. We all know that simply is not true. Yes, it would be grand indeed if everyone acted responsibly and was held accountable for their decisions and actions. With exceptions, this falls under the values category and most people are decent, moral, upright and caring. But, sometimes we rationalize to our own detriment².

The following statements are offered for contemplation. Answer only to yourself.

The rules were made for others. I don’t need to follow posted speed limits because I am a good driver and I know how to handle my car. Or, I can talk on my cell phone while driving because I am careful and I would never cause an accident.
Many of us often consider ourselves innocent if we break the law and don’t get caught – speeding, cheating on taxes, purposefully deceiving an opponent, and the like. A moralizing statement is, “We are what we do when no one else is watching.”
In cases of civil disobedience, the end justifies the means – or not.
If I am willing to accept the consequences, I can do whatever I want.
Consideration of Ethics is meaningless to someone who has nothing to lose.

² Dear Abby, Las Cruces Sun News, December 18, 2011. “The Cold Within,” by James Patrick Kinney

Six humans trapped in happenstance in dark and bitter cold,

Each one possesses a stick of wood, or so the story is told.

Their dying fire in need of logs. The first woman held hers back.

For of the faces around the fire, she noticed one was black.

The next man looking across the way saw not one of his church

and couldn’t bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.

The third sat in tattered clothes – he gave his coat a hitch.

Why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought of the wealth he had in store

and how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.

The black man’s face bespoke revenge as the fire passed from sight,

For all he saw in his stick of wood was a chance to spite the white.

The last man of this forlorn group did naught except for gain –

Giving only to those who gave was how he played the game.

The logs held tight in death’s still hands was proof of human sin.

They didn’t die from cold without, they died from cold within.

The second essay made the point that choosing to live a moral life is an arbitrary choice but, in the long run, most people conclude that it is a smart choice. Of course, if we were more consistent in learning and applying values there would be many fewer fines, lawsuits, and court cases. Rationalizing and justifying our own actions is a process that deserves careful thought and consideration.

What about non-personal decisions? This is not to suggest that persons are excused from consequences of values based decisions in life or in an organizational context. But, the immediate focus is to look at the impact and consequences of organizational policies and actions. Note – it is not my intent to disparage the capitalistic system – arguably, there is none better in the world. But, I do believe a critical examination is legitimate.

Is it said that a corporation is a legal entity without a conscience. Does that excuse a corporations from including morality as a criteria in the decision making process? On the surface, the answer is “yes.” Although many criteria can be applied, the primary motivation for a business or corporation is to earn money for the owners/stockholders. And corporations have free reign so long as their activities are legal. Secondary motivations include building/marketing products and/or providing services to society. The decision to be a good corporate citizen, to provide meaningful employment for others, or to operate “green” may rank high as priorities, but these secondary motivations often boil down to being a “means to an end.”

What about the consequences of bad corporate decisions? That topic is really too huge to tackle but within, the context of the LightSquared debate, I offer several examples and raise a red flag. What about Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? The first two examples have already played out with devastating impact for many persons. Why should the consequence of those bad corporate decisions affect so many (innocent) persons? Do the fines and prison terms for corporate officers involved balance the harm done? Hardly! The impact of the next two examples and the subprime mortgage debacle, caused in large part by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, is well documented. Many people, some culpable and some not, have had their lives turned upside down during the mortgage crisis. But the consequences have not all been realized. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2011) has, only recently, sued the former Chiefs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for misleading investors. A recent book, Reckles$ Endangerment, by Morgenson and Rosner (2011) chronicles the history and events leading to the mortgage crisis of 2008. It is not a difficult read and well worth the time. And, here is the RED FLAG. With the aggressive lobbying actions taken recently by LightSquared, the parallels with events described by Morgenson and Rosner are uncanny indeed. Every civic-minded GPS professional needs to read that book and react to unfolding events.

Conclusion. Although two set of rules may be a fact in modern society, the quality of life for many is enhanced to the extent our decisions (both personal and non-personal) do not cause detrimental consequences for those affected by same. Let’s agree that the golden rule does not say, “Those with the gold make the rules.”

The fourth essay in this series will look at the influence of lobbyists, some motivations for decisions, and the need for checks and balances. At this point, the challenge of extracting coherent arguments from the deluge of unfolding events appears rather formidable – stay tuned.

Reader input and suggestions are always welcome.