THE RANDE AND GEORGIA SOMMA 2015 INTEGRITY FIRST SCHOLARSHIP

    Since 2008, the generosity of the Somma family has changed the lives of more than two dozen RMU students. Recognizing the significant impact of their gift on the lives of RMU students, this year the Somma family has increased the scholarship awards to $5,000 each for four outstanding SBUS students. This scholarship provides RMU SBUS students the opportunity to apply their business ethics training to a wide range of ethical dilemmas including situations involving whistle blowing, outsourcing and financial mismanagement, among others. Scholarship applicants are challenged with developing a course of action highlighting responsible and ethical business practices. • FOUR (4) $5000 scholarships to be awarded to 4 Business School students for Fall 2015 term • Students must have 3.0 overall GPA and need to have completed at least 30 credits by the beginning of the Fall 2015 term. Transfer students need to have completed at least 30 credits by the beginning of the Fall 2015 term of which a minimum of 9 credits must be from RMU • The School of Business Ethics Committee reviews the applications and makes recommendations to the Somma family.

    Captionless Image

    • Scholarship recipients will be notified by August 1, 2015

    Captionless Image

    2015 Rande & Georgia Somma “Integrity First” Scholarship Case

    There is currently a great deal of debate regarding the role employers should take in regulating the behavior of their employees. There is generally little argument about an employer’s right to address employee misbehavior within the work setting. Policies, procedures, rules and corporate codes of conduct that guide work behavior are common. Guidelines are likely to address such behaviors as fraud, harassment, misuse of company resources, conflict of interest, substance abuse, etc. Behavioral regulations that govern behaviors outside the workplace which may impact an employee’s ability to function in the work setting present more areas of disagreement. However, the rights and obligations of employers as they deal with employee misconduct outside the work setting that has little or no effect on the work poses an even larger ethical question. To what lengths should employers go to manage such behavior? How far should an employer’s reach extend? To what extent should employers be *expected* to intercede? In recent months, the National Football League (NFL) has received widespread attention and scrutiny as incidents of domestic violence, child abuse, and substance abuse have cast the NFL in a very negative light. The League has taken a great deal of criticism from many in the media and the general public for its handling of some of these incidents of employee misconduct. The NFL has been denounced for overly lenient punishments, attempting to influence the legal process, and minimizing the seriousness of the situations. The NFL is in a unique position among employers in some respects. As one of the most popular sports in the United States, many players are household names familiar to even casual sports fans. The players are paid large sums of money and receive exposure not only for the game they play but in many instances as endorsers of products, corporate spokesmen, and community role models. This high profile creates circumstances in which employee misconduct, regardless of where or when it occurs is likely to be widely publicized. While the NFL’s success relies on being highly visible, there are occasions when the spotlight shines on less desirable aspects of the league and its players. These occurrences lead to the expectation by some that the league has a responsibility to sanction players for misconduct even in instances where the misbehavior involves actions outside the scope of employment and is perhaps subject to the legal system. The basic question for consideration deals with the role employers should take in regulating the behavior of employees outside the workplace. 1. In what circumstances is it appropriate for employers to take disciplinary action against employees for misconduct that occurs outside the workplace? 2. To what extent do you support or refute this statement from the NFL’s Standard of Conduct policy: “Discipline may be imposed for any conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.”? 3. Would you be supportive of such a statement regardless of the employer, i.e, Walmart, PNC Bank, Joe’s Pizza? 4. What are the boundaries and limitations for corporate conduct policies as they regulate non-work related behaviors? Some resources: NFL’s personal conduct policy • http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/09/nfl_personal_conduct_policy_the_commissioner_has_no_business_punishing_anyone.html PNM Resources (Energy holding company) • https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/12868/conduct.pdf Michigan State University Staff Guidelines • http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/supportstaffpolproc/personalconduct.htm Sears Holding Company • http://www.searsholdings.com/govern/code.htm

    Case Analysis Submission Guidelines

    Please follow the guidelines below in addressing this year’s Case on Integrity: • Format: Double‑spaced, Times New Roman 12 pt. font, 1" margins, minimum of 4 pages and a maximum of 8 pages. • Address each of the questions asked as part of this case analysis. • This case analysis is an individual assignment. As a Robert Morris University student, you are subject to the Robert Morris University Academic Integrity Policy (www.rmu.edu/academicintegrity). As a scholarship applicant, you are required to sign an affidavit ensuring that your submission represents your individual work. This statement is provided on the application. • Your case analysis should incorporate a variety of resources including outside resources, full citations, references and appendices as needed. Additionally, you may incorporate your own academic and/or work experiences. Wikipedia will not be accepted as a reference source, neither will Blog sites. Refer to the OWL website available via Purdue University (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/) for information on proper citation format.

    Captionless Image

    Case Analysis Assessment Categories

    The following criteria will be used to evaluate each case. 1. Understanding of the Issues and the Implications 2. Originality in Approach 3. Coherent Line of Argument 4. Clarity and Effectiveness of Style 5. Research and Bibliography 6. Adherence to Format and Length Rules (Double‑spaced, Times New Roman 12 pt. font, 1" margins, minimum of 4 pages and a maximum of 8 pages)

    2015 Integrity First Scholarship Application

    Candidates must electronically submit this application/affidavit along with your case analysis.
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question
    This is a required question

    Electronic Signature

    My electronic signature certifies that my analysis as submitted is my work, and mine alone.
    This is a required question

    Submit Application via Email

    Candidates must electronically submit this application/affidavit along with your case analysis midnight, Friday, April 10th to: sbusethicscommittee@rmu.edu. Save your case with your name and 2015 Integrity First case submission as the file name. Example: Crawley2015IntegrityFirstCase You may submit your application via email attachment by visiting the following URL: https://mail.google.com/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&source=mailto&su=2015+Integrity+First+Scholarship+Case+Submission&to=sbusethicscommittee@rmu.edu. Call or email Dr. Daria Crawley, SBUS Ethics Committee Chairperson if you have any questions: 412-397-6379 (office) or sbusethicscommittee@rmu.edu.

    Captionless Image