Basic HTML Version
IS IT TRUE THAT...
((EVERY MAN HAS HIS PRICE"?
That statement has been attributed lo Sir Robert Walpole, an English statesman ofthe 1700s. What
was apparently true then is sti/1 a majar factor in today's world ofpolitics and big business. Unethical
compromise and conspiracy are very mucha part ofthe fabric ofmodern society.
E
rnest Fitzgerald was no ordi–
nary Department of Defense
employee. Durif)g his tenure
as cost analyst and program eval–
uator, he had received outstanding
performance ratings. In 1967 he was
nominated for the Department of
Defense distinguished civilian ser–
vice award.
Unfortunately, Fitzgerald was one
ofthose types whodidn't Jet fame and
fortune get in the way ofhis honesty.
In 1966 he began informing defense
executives about massive cost over–
runs in both the C5-A and Minute–
roan missile programs.
"1
think," he wrote in a letter to
higher authorities, "the Minuteman
program has suffered and is suffer–
ing from its own credibility gap.
Sorne time back, lying was a way of
life in the program. Financia! fig–
ures were plucked from thin air, and
deceptive technical information was
presented as a matter of course
.... The solution to this problem is
ultrasimple: Tell the truth, no mal–
ter how painful."
But to Air Force officials and the
defense brass the truth, in this case,
had to be repressed. The Secretary
of the Air Force subsequently
charged that Fitzgerald had "hurt
his relationship with people in the
Air Force by the manner in which
he carried out his job."
Fitzgerald's superiors chose to ig–
nore the real problem and instead
focused their grilling on him. He
soon found his performance ratings
declining from outstanding to satis–
factory. He in tum observed that
"opponents of cost control proposals
tried to ignore the analysis or ridi–
cule the analysts without coming to
grips with the facts."
34
by
George Ritter
Fitzgerald would not be denied.
Sorne of his charges carne to the
attention of Congress. A series of
hearings was convened and the
pressure for truth and light began to
tell on the defense executives. In
their eyes Fitzgerald was no longer
an eccentric organizational gadfty;
he now posed a major threat to their
hierarchical existence. Strenuous ef–
forts were made to have his role in
the hearing reduced to that of a
backup witness. lf anything, the Air
Force brass didn't want to be the
subject of a full-blown series of in–
quiries by Congress.
Fitzgerald spoke the uncompro–
mising truth at the bearings. From
then on he was treated as an "orga–
nizational untouchable." His work
was reduced to mundane tasks like
monitoring cost overruns on bowl–
ing alleys in Thailand. One of his
assistants was reassigned.
Finally. in November 1969. Fitz–
gerald was summarily told that his
services were no longer required–
his job was being "abolished" as
part of the "current Air Force re–
trenchment program."
When the Secretary of the Air
Force was later pressed by promi–
nent congressmen about the in–
ciden!, he replied: "1 did not decide
to tire Mr. Fitzgerald . 1 prefer to use
the term, the corree! term, ' to abol–
ish his job.'" This bureaucratic
double-talk quickly brought a
chorus of laughter from the press,
the audience, and congressmen who
were attending the hearing.
Not satisfied with a simple dis–
missal, the Pentagon brass tried to
further cover their tracks by charg–
ing that Fitzgerald had leaked con–
fideotial documents to Congress.
They accused him of having "moral
lapses" and even tried to dredge up
vague and tenuous insinuations that
"conflict of interest'' was involved.
A Not-So-lsolated Example
Ernest Fitzgerald was later vindi–
cated by subsequent events, and the
Air Force was forced to reinstale
him. But his case is not unique. He
is only one of many who in their
conscientious efforts to preserve
sorne semblance of decency and
truth have run afoul of the political
and corporate establishment.
Men in high places can and are
bought off in our society-with sur–
prising ease. In most cases principie
succumbs to expediency as power–
and position-conscious individuals
do a fast shuffie in looking out for
old number one.
In recent years the military has
shown classic symptoms of turning
men into soulless corporate zom–
bies. " lf a man wants to get on,"
writes Ward Just in
Mi/itary Men,
" he goes along with his superior of–
ficer, which means making few
waves.... Colonel David Hack–
worth, one of the most outspoken
and abrasive (as well as the most
decorated) officers in the Army," re–
lated what happened to individuals
who only planned to compromise
until they reached the top. "'He (a
two-star general] wanted his star,
which is all right, and he admitted
to me once that he would have to
yield, to compromise to achieve his
end. He said to me that once he had
three stars he would straighten it
out, fix the system. And that 's the
irony, because you're a different
man then. You become the guy who
you started out to impersonate'"
The
PLAIN TRUTH August 1978