It’s a Matter of Character : Pentagon Doesn’t Need New Laws, It Needs Good People

Allegations of fraud in the Pentagon point to the need for changes in the weapons-acquisition process. However, although both liberals and conservatives are calling for major reforms, the latest examples of alleged corruption are more about individual character and organizational culture than structure and process. More laws would neither solve the problem nor prevent future episodes. What is required is far more difficult: creating an environment in which corruption and malfeasance in defense contracting are seen as evils in and of themselves.

It is premature to judge the individuals and contractors who are under investigation, since no indictments have been issued nor convictions obtained. Yet, if the allegations are true, there is no doubt that those involved knew that what they were doing was illegal: Federal law clearly prohibits the bribery of public officials and the release of proprietary, classified or competition-sensitive information to unauthorized parties.

Why, then, did such acts apparently occur? Part of the problem stems from the so-called revolving door, through which former military officers and procurement officials take lucrative jobs with defense contractors when they leave government service. They come to the private sector with a valuable network of contacts and relationships with those who are still working on the inside, who may see nothing wrong with doing a favor for an old friend. With billions of dollars at stake, it is easy to see the attraction of improper practices.

Yet that cannot be the whole story. A more convincing explanation is that the people involved were simply dishonest to begin with. They saw an opportunity to enrich themselves and took advantage, even though they knew that they were breaking the law and violating their public trust. The fault thus lies not so much with the procurement process--after all, millions of contract actions take place each year with no hint of impropriety--as with the people put in place to run it. The best system in the world can be ruined by bad people; in this respect, Pentagon spokesman Dan Howard is correct when he says that the investigation is about people, not institutions.

Consider the ethical standards of some key players of the Defense Department under the Reagan Administration. A former deputy secretary of defense, Paul Thayer, convicted of insider stock trading and sentenced to prison. A former deputy undersecretary of defense, Mary Ann Gilleece, who solicited contracts from defense companies for her new consulting business while she was still at the Pentagon in a position to influence government contract decisions. A former assistant secretary of the Navy, Melvyn R. Paisley (under investigation in the current scandal), who apparently lied about both his academic achievements and war record and accepted an illegal $183,000 handshake from his employer, Boeing, when he joined the Pentagon. With an organizational culture that takes little notice of this kind of behavior, it should be no surprise if similar standards carry over to the day-to-day operation of the Pentagon.

We do not need more laws to prevent this kind of corruption--or, put another way, laws alone will not restrain dishonest people. Moreover, once they are caught it is too late, since public confidence in government has already been damaged.

Tighter enforcement of existing corruption and conflict-of-interest laws would certainly help, but it is far more important to inculcate within the Pentagon a set of ethical principles that value honesty for its own sake, coupled with messages from the highest levels that corruption will simply not be tolerated. Here, former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger clearly abdicated his responsibilities, choosing to spend his time seeking ever larger defense budgets while being completely inattentive to how those resources were used. The message: Spend as much money as quickly as possible, and don’t worry too much about cutting corners.

We do need to become accustomed to the idea that evidence of past misbehavior (drawing distinctions between youthful indiscretions and actions that reveal questionable character) should disqualify candidates from high-level procurement jobs. Those who oversee the procurement process must be absolutely above reproach and chosen for their management skills rather than their political connections. Although some qualified applicants might be discouraged from seeking a government job in the procurement “priesthood,” this is a small price for ensuring integrity and public confidence in government institutions.

The immense and lucrative procurement field is, by its nature, rife with opportunities to seek private gain at the expense of the public good. No set of regulations or laws can change that. What will foster change is a fundamental shift in the organizational culture of the Department of Defense, which is too often hostile to those who actively pursue the public interest and indulgent toward those who abuse it. As long as such attitudes persist, thereis no hope at all for eliminating venality from the business of defending America.