Statement of the relevant Facts Over the past few years, ethical reform is a phenomenon that has received a lot of attention across the country, most especially in the state of New York, where Joseph L. Bruno was once a majority leader. Mr. Bruno was an upstate Republican and a majority leader of the state of New York between 1994 to June 2008. The congressman resigned in 2008 following allegations of violating ethical standards (Gershman, 2011). In his capacity as a congressman, Mr. Bruno was involved in many business dealings. In 2008, however, he was indicted for receiving more than 3 million dollars as handouts and bribes during the period he was a congressman from a number of companies seeking state grants and contracts. The lawmaker concealed his fraudulent dealings on his annual financial disclosures, often omitting those dealings completely. Ethics perspective Individuals who are charged with the responsibility to serve the public trust, such as the political leaders, ought to be cautious to ensure that in all their endeavors, they make responsible as well as ethical decisions. The realities of deadlines demand quick results, bureaucracies, and budget makes it difficult or unclear how to formally deal with ethics (Cooper, 2012). Nevertheless, administrators of public trust must effectively fulfill their administrative duties. According to copper, there are a number of codes that administrators ought to observe. These ethical codes or statements include accountability, selflessness, integrity, and honesty. According to the case study of Senator Joseph Bruno, the congressman violated all the ethical statements, essentially in his actions and decisions. To begin with, Mr. Bruno violated the ethical statement of honesty. This statement requires public officers to take responsibility for declaring their interests, which are private and which are related to their public duty. That notwithstanding, the senator used his office to amass wealth. Turning to accountability, the senator concealed his dealings in an effort to hide from public scrutiny and the appropriate authorities. As if that was not enough, Mr. Bruno put his integrity to question by accepting financial favors from individuals and institutions and, in return, used his influence to secure for them contracts and grants. Finally, the senator’s actions were self-centered with the aim of self-gain as well as benefiting his accomplices without any due regard to the public interest. Accountability perspective While serving as a Representative, the senator had the authority to control a lot of money in the public and private sectors. Following allegation of fraud and none disclosure of his sources of income, the senator had to resign and later charged with offenses related to corruption. The senator was found guilty as charged (McIntire, 2007). After the indictment, the federal prosecutors accused the former senator of receiving more than 3 million dollars as handouts and bribes over the past 13 years from a number of companies seeking state grants and contracts (Hakim, 2008). During the trial, evidence was adduced to prove that Mr. Bruno had committed fraud by way of receiving kickbacks as well as bribes amounting to about 24