Earle's Dilemma Case Summary

1. Rachel Arnett’s revision of the proposal was in violation of the IMA’s Statement of Ethical Professional Practice, because she decided to throw out the correct information that she had gathered to find a net present value that would make the vice president of finance satisfied. She gathered data on all costs and benefits of having the third business jet and her conclusion was that it would be worse for the company to have this jet because of the very large negative net present value. After William Earle questioned her report and told her there must have been an error, she threw out her numbers and used ones that had a very small chance of actually occurring, just to benefit what Earle wanted. This revision violated the IMA’s requirement to “communicate information fairly and objectively”. Rachel’s revision was not
She also violated the requirement to “provide decision support information and recommendations that are accurate, clear, concise, and timely”. By changing her first proposal to what William Earle wanted, she was not providing accurate or concise information that would help out the company. If I were in Rachel’s place, I would resolve these issues by explaining to Earle how I found the numbers for the proposal. By going through each cost of acquisition, operating, resale value, etc. with Earle, I could show him how I was coming to the conclusion of that number of a specific cost.

2. William Earle was without a doubt in violation of the IMA’s Statement of Ethical Professional Practice by telling Rachel to revise the proposal even though Rachel knew there were no errors made in her calculations, and by telling her to start with a net present value of $100,000 and work her way backwards from that. He violated the standard of integrity when he chose to not “refrain from engaging in any conduct that would