Public Administration ‒ The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Your involvement in public organizations, whether in your career or as a private citizen, will inevitably center on the development, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. You may work for an agency charged with devising new approaches to familiar problems, you may want to see that a particular policy or proposal is framed in a way that is consistent with your beliefs, or you may simply want to better understand the implications of a particular direction in national, state, or local public policy. In any case, it will be helpful for you to know how public policies are designed and put into practice.

Talk of public policy is, of course, quite familiar. From one day to another, we hear criticisms

of the U.S. policy in the Middle East, proposals for new initiatives in health care, calls for a more effective drug enforcement policy, challenges to a school district's approach to violence

in the schools, ideas for changing a city's policy toward the homeless, or proposals for

altering an organization's hiring practices. Uses of the term policy are varied, and the process

by which policies are developed is even more complex.

We may think of a a as a statement of goals and intentions with respect to a particular

problem or set of problems, a statement often accompanied by a more detailed set of plans,

programs, or instructions for pursuing those goals. Public policies are authoritative statements made by legitimate governmental actors (the chief executive, the legislature,

public agencies) or nongovernmental actors (nonprofit organizations, foundations, quasi-

governmental organizations, private corporations) about important, and sometimes not so

important, public problems. We expect decision makers at all levels to spend considerable

time and energy dealing with such topics as foreign affairs, health, education, employment,

the economy, civil rights, the environment, energy, transportation, housing, agriculture, law

enforcement, and myriad other issues. But in each of these areas, public policy is simply what

an agency or an entire network of public, private, and nonprofit organizations decides to do or not do.

Organizations in all sectors are deeply involved in carrying out public policy—executing or

“implementing.” But these organizations are also involved in developing policy. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations play an important role in shaping public

policy. Proposals are written and submitted by agency personnel; testimony and other

expert advice are presented; and representatives of various agencies, especially political

appointees who head agencies, often seek to build public support for particular ideas. Those in government agencies, and increasingly in nonprofit organizations, are often asked to

elaborate on or clarify legislative intentions, and, in doing so, they continue the process of

policy development.

Moreover, public, private, and nonprofit organizations not only develop policies that guide

their own activities, but they also seek to influence the course of public policy on behalf of

their members or other constituencies. Many such groups limit their activities to providing

public information and seeking to indirectly affect the formation of policies in their area of

interest. But others are far more direct, employing lobbyists and others whose specific job is to influence the policy process.

To understand the conduct of specific public and nonprofit organizations in the policy

process, you must have some understanding of the context in which these organizations

operate. That context is not merely physical; it includes the beliefs and values that shape our expectations of the organizations as well as the structures we have developed to try to

maintain those values. In large part, the complexity of the policy process in this country is

the result of the Founding Fathers' fear of concentrated power, a fear they sought to allay by

organizing the federal government into three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—so that no one branch could exert itself above the others. In this formulation, the

primary task of the legislative branch is to make the laws, the primary task of the executive

branch is to carry out the laws, and the primary task of the judicial branch is to interpret the

laws. As we will see, our political system has evolved in such a way that the relations between

and among the various branches, and between governmental and nongovernmental

institutions, remain a central issue in conducting public programs. This chapter focuses on

the relations between public administrators and the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary as they work together to seek important policy goals.

Administrative Organizations and Executive Leadership As we saw in Chapter 1, public administrators work in federal, state, and local governments

and in nonprofit organizations and associations. But, understandably, the federal government, simply by virtue of its size and the range of its activities, has become the model

against which others are often judged. For that reason, we begin our discussion of the

political context of American public administration by examining the development of the

national administrative system and the role of the chief executive in that system.

Again it is helpful to begin with a brief historical review, primarily because some of the

arguments that characterized discussions of administration in the early days of our nation

are quite similar to those that continue to confront us. Take, for example, the difference between the Federalist view, expressed most forcefully by Alexander Hamilton, and that of

the Jeffersonians, led by (you guessed it!) Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton and his Federalist

colleagues argued for a strong centralized government, staffed and managed by men of

wealth, class, and education. “The Federalist preference for the executive branch was a faithful reflection of their distrust of the people. An intelligent perception of sound public

policy, in their view, could come only from well-educated men of affairs, men with trained

minds and broad experience—in short from the upper classes” (White, 1948, p. 410).

The Jeffersonians, on the other hand, saw the administration of government as intimately connected to the problem of extending democracy throughout the nation. They thus

preferred a more decentralized approach to the executive function and sought formal legal

controls on the executive so that executive power would not be abused (Caldwell, 1964). These democratic views reached their pinnacle in the administration of Andrew Jackson,

known for its openness to the “common man.” But the Jacksonian era was also notable for

extension and formalization of the administrative apparatus of government; the administration of government began to form “a link between the nation's political

authorities and its citizens” (Crenson, 1975, p. 10; see also Nelson, 1982).

Despite these developments, the president's role as chief executive officer, the head of the

federal bureaucracy, was not clearly established until well into the twentieth century, when Franklin Roosevelt was able to assert his administrative management of the executive

branch and to set a model for all the presidents who have followed him. Some changes were

inevitable: the growing size and scope of governmental activity simply required greater

attention to management and organization. Other changes reflected a greater understanding of the administrative process and how the work of government might be accomplished more

effectively.

In 1936, President Roosevelt appointed a committee on administrative management, chaired by Louis Brownlow, that included a number of respected scholars and practitioners

in the emerging field of public administration. The Brownlow committee concluded that “the

president needs help” and recommended a series of possible steps to improve the

president's management of the executive branch (Karl, 1963). Though initially sidetracked in the wake of the president's attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court, the major

recommendations of the Brownlow committee were finally approved in the Reorganization

Act of 1939. This act authorized the president to take the initiative in reshaping and

reorganizing the executive branch, subject only to congressional veto. The Reorganization Act also allowed President Roosevelt to create the Executive Office of the President,

composed of six assistants, to give the president the help he needed. (The Executive Office of

the President continues today, but now it employs about 2,000 people.)

All presidents since Roosevelt have continued to assert their executive power in various

ways. President Nixon sought to further centralize managerial power in the White House;

President Carter sought greater managerial responsiveness through the Civil Service Reform

Act. President Reagan and the first President Bush pursued the same ends by extending

political control further into the bureaucracy while also developing programs to reduce costs

and increase productivity.

President Clinton acted on his promises to streamline government and improve quality and

productivity through implementation of the National Performance Review (NPR), an

initiative aimed at increasing trust in government through a broad range of improvements

in government quality and productivity as well as through reductions in the size of

government. First presented in 1993 and implemented over several years, the NPR made hundreds of recommendations aimed at cutting red tape and regulations, empowering

federal employees to make decisions while holding them accountable for results, and

emphasizing service to “customers.” Although the NPR ended in January 2001, the larger

“Reinventing Government” movement of which it was a part has become a central theme in

discussions of public and nonprofit reform, which will be discussed in more detail in later

chapters.

President George W. Bush introduced substantial changes in management practices through

the President's Management Agenda (PMA), an initiative aimed at improving management

and performance through strategic management of human capital, budget and performance

integration, improved financial performance, expanded e-government, and competitive sourcing. However, his reforms did not stop with management practices. Bush's decisions on

national intelligence, including the establishment of the new Department of Homeland

Security and his initiatives in international affairs (primarily the Iraq and Afghanistan

interventions), constituted “the most far-reaching reorganization of the executive branch since the National Security Act of 1947” (Pfiffner, 2007, pp. 14–15) and gave him a great deal

of success in extending presidential powers.

Whereas his predecessors came into office with high-profile plans for reforming government, President Obama's approach has been much more subdued. The global

economic problems and contentious political environment that marked the beginning of the

Obama administration may have led the new president toward a more pragmatic approach

to management changes (Vlk, 2011). Early efforts focused on reforms in government contracting and outsourcing, the creation of a performance management initiative, the

increased use of technology to connect with citizens, and a drive toward increasing

transparency by making huge amounts of government data available online. One strategy

that President Obama has employed is that of “setting broad principles on big issues—the stimulus, climate change, health care reform—and then tossing the debate back to Congress

to resolve” (Kettl, 2010, p. 287). And while this strategy has drawn a great deal of criticism,

it resulted in a stimulus package, the adoption of health-care reform, and “some movement on climate change” (Kettl, 2010, p. 287).

Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney said very much during their 2012 presidential

campaigns about management reform in the federal government, but both face the difficult

problem of reducing the deficit and curbing spending. Obama is seeking a balanced tax plan

that involves spending cuts and making sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share

of taxes.

One important tool that presidents have employed is the executive order, a presidential

mandate directed to and governing, with the effect of law, the actions of government officials

and government agencies. Over time, the executive order has become a chief instrument of

presidential power. President Obama, for example, used one of his early executive orders (no.

13507, April 8, 2009) to create the White House Office of Health Reform to coordinate his administration's efforts to reform the nation's health-care system. In this case and many others

like it, the president essentially makes law by decree, occasionally in direct opposition to the

wishes of Congress and constituent groups.

Another way in which presidents increasingly have sought to expand their authority is through the use of high-level appointees, termed “czars,” who are assigned responsibility for

specific policy issues. These appointees “have the president's trust as well as his ear, and

thus the ability to effect significant change on the important policy task to which they have been assigned” (Villalobos & Vaughn, 2010, p. 5). However, because they are not subject to

Senate approval and report only to the president, critics charge that these czars hold too

much power (Buss, Balutis, & Ink, 2011). President Obama in particular came under fire from

Congress and the media for the number of czars he appointed, although some observers argue that Obama's use of czars did not differ dramatically from that of his immediate

predecessor.

In fact, czars have been used by nearly every president since Franklin Roosevelt, when the

creation of the Executive Office of the President in 1939 opened the door for such appointments, although the use of czars in the ensuing decades was limited until the Clinton

administration. The number of czars grew exponentially under George W. Bush, a practice

that has been continued in the Obama administration. Villalobos and Vaughn (2010) note

that, together, Bush and Obama represent a significant shift in the use of these appointees,

and they argue that this “rise of presidential policy czars has not occurred in isolation, but

rather is part of a comprehensive pattern that includes centralization/politicization, signing

statements, executive orders, secrecy, etc., that reflects the increasing untenability of the role and responsibility of the American presidency” (p. 31).

The president, as chief executive officer of the federal government, exercises power over an

enormous and wide-ranging set of public organizations. In 2010, there were some 2.8 million

civilians employed by the federal government and another 1.6 million uniformed military personnel

(http://-w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v-/-f-e-d-d-a-t-a-/-H-i-s-t-o-r-i-c-a-l-T-a-b-l-e-s-/-T-o-t-a-l-G-

o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t-S-i-n-c-e-1-9-6-2-.-a-s-p). In addition, the federal government supports and pays for a wide variety of activities in which the actual work is performed by someone

other than a federal civil servant. The Department of Defense, for example, supervises almost

2 million persons in private industry who are involved, directly or indirectly, in defense-

related work.

Administrative Organizations

You are probably already familiar with many of the agencies of government at the federal

level; however, several types are particularly important: (1) the Executive Office of the

President; (2) the cabinet-level executive departments; (3) a variety of independent agencies, regulatory commissions, and public corporations; and (4) administrative agencies

that support the work of the legislature and the judiciary.

The Executive Office of the President The various administrative bodies located in the

Executive Office of the President both advise the president and assist in formulating

and implementing national policy. Several offices have come to play especially

important policy roles. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example,

assists the president in preparing the budget, submitting it to Congress, and

administering it. OMB is also involved in reviewing the management of various agencies, suggesting changes in structures and procedures, and searching out capable

executives for service in government. The National Security Council is charged with

integrating domestic, military, and foreign policy; it is made up of the president, vice

president, and secretaries of state and defense and is directed by the national security adviser. Finally, the Council of Economic Advisers consists of three economists who

develop proposals to “maintain employment, production, and purchasing power.” The

council also develops a variety of economic reports.

Obviously, all of these groups, and others in the Executive Office of the President, are used in different ways by different presidents according to the personality of the president and the

particular issues that are most pressing at that time. Some presidents, such as Reagan and

Bush, have relied very heavily on their staffs, whereas others, such as Carter, have been much

more personally involved in management and policy development.

Networking

To locate information about the executive branch of the federal government, check out the

following websites: -w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v and

http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-/-F-e-d-e-r-a-l-/-E-x-e-c-u-t-i-v-e-.-s-h-t-m-l.

For access to executive orders, go to

http://-w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-b-r-i-e-f-i-n-g--

-r-o-o-m-/-p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-l---a-c-t-i-o-n-s-/-e-x-e-c-u-t-i-v-e---o-r-d-e-r-s.

Cabinet-Level Executive Departments These agencies are among the most visible, if

not always the largest, of the federal executive agencies. There are currently fifteen

cabinet-level departments. They are the Departments of Defense, Health and Human

Services, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Justice, Commerce, State, Labor, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs, and—

the newest—Homeland Security, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Several departments, such as Treasury and State, date back to the nation's founding;

others were created by Congress as needed.

Each cabinet-level department is headed by a secretary, who, along with a group of top-level

staff people, is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate. Each cabinet-level

department is organized into smaller units, such as offices, services, administrations,

branches, and sections. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, includes the Public Health Service, which in turn includes the Food and Drug Administration, the

National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In early

2012, President Obama elevated the head of the Small Business Administration to cabinet- level status. Obama also announced plans to merge the Department of Commerce, the Small

Business Administration, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Export-

Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the United States Trade and

Development Agency (Harrison & Khazan, 2012). President Obama can be expected to

continue this plan into his second term, although there are likely to be few other

reorganizations. In any case, we should note that though each department is headquartered in Washington, D.C., their offices are, of course, spread across the country. Indeed, just over

10 percent of the federal workforce lives in or around the District of Columbia.

The cabinet-level secretaries, along with a few others, such as the director of the Office of

Management and Budget and the ambassador to the United Nations, constitute the president's cabinet, a group that some presidents have used sparingly and primarily for

formal matters and others have employed extensively for help and advice. Inevitably, a

president will come to rely informally on certain advisers, cabinet members, or others

outside the formal inner circle for advice and consultation. Historically, for example, President Kennedy relied heavily on the advice of his brother, Robert, during the Cuban

Missile Crisis, even though as attorney general his brother held no formal position that would

involve him in foreign affairs.

Independent Agencies, Regulatory Commissions, and Public Corporations A variety of

independent agencies have been created intentionally outside the normal cabinet organization.

Some are engaged in staff functions in support of other agencies. The Office of Personnel

Management, for example, oversees the federal personnel function, and the General Services Administration oversees the government's property. Other agencies have simply not been

viewed as appropriate to include in cabinet-level departments; among these are the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Small Business Administration. With rare exceptions,

these independent agencies are directed by persons appointed by the president with the confirmation of the Senate.

What Would You Do?

You are in charge of the federal government's effort to assess the scientific, technical, and

socioeconomic impact of greenhouse gas emissions and to understand the potential for climate change caused by these emissions. Your agency has recently been accused of

“sugarcoating” the data to protect the administration from potential political damage. What

would you do?

Regulatory commissions, examples of which would be the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are formed to regulate a particular area of the

economy and are structured quite differently. But typically, they are headed by a group of

individuals (variously called directors, commissioners, or governors) appointed by the

president and confirmed by the Senate. These persons are protected in various ways from removal by the president; in some cases, their terms of appointment overlap presidential terms.

Presumably, the regulatory commissions are to perform their tasks independently and

objectively, free from undue influence either by the political incumbent or by the affected clientele. As we will see later, however, the nature of regulatory work makes this task

exceedingly difficult. (Note that not all regulatory bodies are located outside the cabinet

departments; for instance, the Food and Drug Administration is part of the Department of

Health and Human Services.)

Public corporations are employed where the objective of the agency is essentially commercial,

where the work of the agency requires greater latitude than would be typical, and where the agency will acquire at least a portion of its funding in the marketplace (Moe, 2001; Walsh,

1978). The Tennessee Valley Authority, which has provided power in the Tennessee Valley for

well over fifty years, is a classic example of a public corporation. Somewhat more recent

additions to the growing list of government corporations include the U.S. Postal Service and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), both established in 1970.

Agencies Supporting the Legislature and the Judiciary Both the legislative and judicial

branches require considerable direct administrative support for their members

(legislative staff, committee staff, and court administrators). There are also several specific agencies attached to the legislative branch that are of special significance. You

are probably already familiar with the Government Printing Office and the Library of

Congress. But, although less is known about the Government Accountability Office

(GAO), its duties have become increasingly important. Established in 1921 and headed

by the comptroller general, the GAO is responsible for auditing funds to see that they

are properly spent. In recent years, however, the agency's mission has broadened to

include formal program evaluations within various agencies. The GAO studies the way federal money is spent and advises Congress and executive agencies on ways to

improve the efficiency and responsiveness of government. Finally, Congress is

supported by the Congressional Budget Office, an agency that supports the budget

process and whose operations we will examine more carefully in Chapter 7.

The State Level

The organization of state governments varies considerably, according to each state's policy

interests and political development; however, there is little question that state government in this country is “big business.” In fact, if you compare the revenues of state governments

with those of the largest private companies in America, the results are striking. California

would rank thirteenth just above Bank of America, and New York would be fortieth just

behind Boeing. Even Hawaii, a small state, would still rank in the top 500 (http://-m-o-n-e-y-.-c-n-n-.-c-o-m-/-m-a-g-a-z-i-n-e-s-/-f-o-r-t-u-n-e-/-f-o-r-t-u-n-e-5-0-0-/

-2-0-1-2-/-f-u-l-l_-l-i-s-t-/;

http://-w-w-w-2-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-g-o-v-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-t-a-x-/-1-1-s-t-a-x-r-a-n-k-.-p-d-f

).

Recent efforts to decrease federal involvement in domestic policy have combined with a

general growth in the range of activities undertaken at the state level to support a vast

increase in state activity. Between 1980 and 2008, state government employment rose from 3.7 million to 5.2 million, with an even more dramatic rise in state expenditures, from $4.3

billion in 2008 to $18.7 billion in 2008

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-c-o-m-p-e-n-d-i-a-/-s-t-a-t-a-b-/-c-a-t-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-_-l

-o-c-a-l-_-g-o-v-t-_-f-i-n-a-n-c-e-s-_-e-m-p-l-o-y-m-e-n-t-.-h-t-m-l). From time to time, states

in fact play an important role in the redistribution of governmental power. For example, in the mid-1990s, states were central to the federal government's move to reform the nation's

welfare system, a reform agenda that led to the devolution of many public assistance

programs and a further expansion in the role of state government. Similarly, the states have

been important actors in the most recent debates concerning health care, especially concerning the role of states in funding and executing various proposals.

The organization and structure of state governments in many ways mirror the organization

and structure of the national government, but there are some distinctive features. You should

note, for example, the large number of elected administrative officials in most state governments. In most states, the people elect not only the governor and lieutenant governor,

but also the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the state treasurer. Many states still

elect the head of the Department of Agriculture by popular vote, and it is not uncommon to

have members of various boards and commissions (for instance, the Public Service

Commission) elected by the public. Obviously, the corresponding offices at the federal level

are filled by presidential appointment. (The large number of elected officials at the state and

local level is a carryover from a period in which democratic tendencies in this country were especially strong and it was felt that nearly all major officials of government should be

elected directly by the people.)

In addition, many state departments do not report directly to the governor, but rather to

boards or commissions isolated from executive control in the same way as regulatory commissions at the federal level. For example, a Department of Conservation may report to

a commission appointed by the governor for periods exceeding those of the governor and,

indeed, may have dedicated sources of revenue essentially outside the governor's budgetary control. Obviously, under such circumstances, the governor's power as chief executive is

severely limited.

Networking

For information about state governments, start with

http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-.-s-h-t-m-l. Also see the Council of State Governments at -w-w-w-.-c-s-g-.-o-r-g.

Despite structural limitations on gubernatorial powers, contemporary governors exercise a

broad range of political and executive influence that enable them to play a major, even

central role in the operations of state government. In recent years, these powers have even had an impact on national policy making, particularly in the welfare and health-care reform

agendas mentioned previously. For example, the Massachusetts health-care system enacted

when Mitt Romney was governor of that state became a model for similar federal legislation, even though Romney later became an opponent of the Obama health-care plan. Most

important, governors play a key symbolic role, helping to set the political agenda and to focus

the attention of other political and administrative actors on a limited number of special

topics. Many governors have accumulated special powers with respect to the budget process

through which they are able to dramatically affect the allocation of state resources and to

mediate policy disputes among executive agencies (Bowman & Kearney, 1986, p. 54).

Beyond these somewhat informal powers, the strength of the governor's formal executive

powers is often gauged by three measures: the presence or absence of the item veto, the

ability of the governor to reorganize state agencies, and the number of other elected officials.

All state governors have the power to veto legislation. Most states also give the governor the power of an item veto (also called “line-item veto“), the capacity to veto specific items within

an appropriations bill (as opposed to accepting all or nothing), which is a helpful tool in

shaping legislation according to the governor's preferences. (During his final term, President

Clinton, himself a former governor, supported passage of the line-item veto at the federal level. The federal provision, however, was ultimately invalidated by the Supreme Court in

Clinton v. City of New York [1998].) The gubernatorial power to reorganize is more limited.

Roughly half the states require either statutory or even constitutional action to reorganize.

Finally, as we have seen, nearly all states have a variety of statewide elected officials in

addition to the governor and lieutenant governor. Indeed, most states have between four

and eight agencies that are controlled by individuals elected statewide rather than

appointed.

The growing importance of state government suggests that governors will likely continue to

assert their executive leadership role and will seek greater control by reorganizing the

executive branch. So far, however, relatively few structural moves have been made.

However, some procedural changes have occurred; for example, many states have moved in the direction of more clearly establishing the governor's leading role in the budgetary

process and establishing centralized management improvement programs.

Although the organization of government varies considerably from state to state, most states have a variety of substantive agencies concerned with state and local needs (Natural

Resources, Highways and Transportation, and so on), as well as several agencies, such as the

Department of Social Services, that largely administer programs funded by the federal

government. These agencies are likely to be assisted by a central management support unit,

called an Office of Administration or a similar title, that provides budget, personnel, and

other general services. As mentioned, if there is one trend in the reorganization of state

agencies, that trend would seem to be the creation of a greater number of state departments

devoted to economic development. In some cases, these departments seek to coordinate many economic development activities; in others, there is a more specific focus on small

business or on providing incentives for industrial location or relocation.

The Local Level

According to the most recent data available, there are over 89,000 local governments (see

Table 2.1). Many of these are municipalities, cities, and towns of varying sizes offering a full

range of services; others are counties, typically more limited in their role but still embracing

a variety of governmental functions. But most are special districts, created to serve one

particular function, such as education, fire protection, or parks and recreation. (Only special districts have substantially increased in numbers over the past several years.)

Cities American cities are organized in three ways. The mayor-council form is used by

about 47 percent of all municipalities, about 57 percent of those with a population over

250,000, and two-thirds of those with a population over 1 million (ICMA, 2010). In all cases, both the council and mayor are elected, the latter either by direct popular vote or a council

election. One variation of the mayor-council form features a strong mayor with almost total

administrative authority, including for preparation and administration of the budget. Policy

making in this form is a joint endeavor of the mayor and council. The weak mayor type places primary administrative control, including for most appointments and development of the

budget, in the hands of the council.

TABLE 2.1

Number of Governmental Units, by Type of Government, 2007

Federal 1 State 50

Local 89,476

County 3,033

Municipal 19,492 Township and town 16,519

School district 13,051

Special district 37,381

Total 89,527 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2011

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-c-o-m-p-e-n-d-i-a-/-s-t-a-t-a-b-/-c-a-t-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-_-l-o-c-a-l-_-g-o

-v-t-_-f-i-n-a-n-c-e-s-_-e-m-p-l-o-y-m-e-n-t-.-h-t-m-l).

The power of the mayor as chief executive is obviously greater in the strong mayor system,

and, consequently, that system is used in most large, industrial cities. At least in a formal sense, however, several large cities, including Chicago, still maintain a weak mayor system,

although even under such circumstances, a particular mayor may assert considerable

strength. The legendary Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, for example, was able to utilize a

well-oiled political machine to assert substantial administrative power. Though he operated

in a weak mayor system, Daley was unquestionably a strong mayor.

A recent variation on the mayor-council form is the use of a professionally trained chief

administrative officer (sometimes called a “deputy mayor“) to oversee the administrative operations of city government (as in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Washington, D.C.). We find

this administrative arrangement in many big cities, where mayors are often more interested

in campaigning and in working with external constituencies and like to have someone else

oversee the internal management of the city. But city administrators are also being hired in

an increasing number of smaller mayor-council communities as well, mostly in an effort to

bring professional expertise to local government.

The council-manager form of local government is of special interest. It represents a structural

effort to solve the classic question of the relationship between politics (or policy) and

administration. In this form, the city council, usually five to seven people, has responsibility for

making policy, including passing appropriations and supervising in a general way the administration of city government. The primary executive responsibility, however, lies with a

full-time professionally trained city manager; the mayor has no involvement in the

administration of the city and performs primarily ceremonial duties and legislation. In its

classic formulation, therefore, the council-manager form is designed so that the council makes policy and the city manager carries it out.

The council-manager plan was first tried in Staunton, Virginia, in 1908, and a few years later

it was adopted in Dayton, Ohio, with great success. Several reform organizations, such as the National Municipal League, felt the council-manager plan would be a good way to insulate

the management of city government from the vagaries of local politics and consequently

added their endorsement.

Networking

For information about local and tribal governments, see http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-ov-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-.-s-h-t-m-l. See also the National League of

Cities at -w-w-w-.-n-l-c-.-o-r-g-; the National Civic League at -w-w-w-.-n-c-l-.-o-r-g-; the U.S.

Conference of Mayors at w-w-w-.-u-s-m-a-y-o-r-s-.-o-r-g-; and the International City

Management Association at http://-i-c-m-a-.-o-r-g.

The number of council-manager governments has grown steadily throughout this century

and continues to increase. Today, some 52 percent of American communities employ the

plan. Whereas the mayor-council system is associated with larger, industrialized, and heterogeneous cities, the council-manager plan is most frequently found in medium-sized

cities. Over 60 percent of American cities with populations between 25,000 and 250,000

operate with the plan, and 32 percent of the cities with a population below 5,000 have

adopted it. Although a number of large cities, such as Phoenix, San Antonio, and Kansas City, use the plan, it is more rare among cities over 1 million in population. The council-manager

form continues to grow, however, with the number of council-manager adoptions

outrunning those of the mayor-council form by three to one over the past twenty years.

Those favoring the council-manager plan usually argue that it emphasizes professional expertise and administrative accountability; those favoring the mayor-council plan

emphasize its adaptability and its responsiveness to community needs. As a result, more

than 89 million Americans now live in communities with council-manager governments (Council-Manager System, 2006).

A small number of American cities use the commission form of government. Under this form,

the people elect a set of commissioners. Each acts as a council member but also as director of a

particular city department; for example, one commissioner might head the Parks Department

and another the Public Works Department. The commission form is fading; we find it today

primarily in smaller rural communities, although it is still found in places such as Portland, Oregon, the last remaining large city using the form.

Counties Counties (or variations, such as parishes in Louisiana) are found in nearly

every state and range in population from very small to huge. Once considered an

unexplored area of local government, counties are emerging as important actors in the modern governmental system. Counties have traditionally provided a range of

services in behalf of state government, a role that has expanded considerably in the

last decades. In addition, counties have recently assumed a wide range of new services

(such as mass transit, mental health, waste disposal, and police services) that, for one reason or another, cannot be offered by individual municipalities.

The traditional form of county government has been a combination of a county commission

and a series of elected administrative officials, such as sheriff, auditor, treasurer, and so on. An emerging trend in county government, however, is the use of appointed county

administrators, similar in many ways to the city manager at the municipal level. Still another

type of county government, also increasing in use, involves the combination of a city council

and an elected executive. In this system, a chief executive is elected by the people and holds powers similar to that of a governor in a state system. For example, the elected executive

often has veto power over council actions. Trends toward a greater range of activities,

especially in the social services, combined with the increasing professionalism of county

government make this often overlooked area one of the most interesting arenas for public service today.

Native American Tribes Native American tribes have a special relationship with the

U.S. government. This relationship was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice Marshall in three decisions between 1827 and 1832 known as the Marshall Trilogy. In

these decisions, Marshall acknowledged that American Indians had inherent rights to

possess and use their land and that they had sovereignty to run their own affairs. But

even though they were seen as nations, the tribes were not foreign nations. They could

not sell their land without the consent of the federal government. And the federal

government had responsibilities to protect Indian land from incursions from the

states and others. Marshall described this relationship as similar to guardianship.

This relationship has evolved over the last 150 years. Influenced greatly by European

settlers' desire to move westward, Congress made treaties, fought wars, and otherwise

moved Indians out of the way of western expansion. Despite efforts to assimilate Indians into

the dominant culture, many Indians have clung to their heritage and maintained their tribal governance systems. Today, the Department of the Interior recognizes more than 500 tribes

who have sovereignty over their internal affairs, and tribal management is emerging as a

growing and significant field in public administration. Not only do those engaged in tribal

administration need to understand the special circumstances surrounding tribal

governance, but also public administrators who work near or with tribes need to be aware

of the legal history that has led to Native American rights that are unique in America.

Special Purpose Governments Finally, we should note again the large number of

special districts, or special purpose governments, that operate in the United States.

Some exist at the local level: limited-purpose districts, which may operate in the areas

of natural resources, fire protection, libraries, schools, housing and community development, and so forth, are typically governed by an appointed part-time

governing board and a full-time general manager or executive director who plays the

most significant role in the operation of the district. Critics claim that the proliferation

of special districts causes fragmentation and lack of coordination, but others argue that such districts remain important because they are “close to the people.”

The largest group of special districts are school districts. There are roughly 14,000 local

school districts in the United States, serving over 79 million students—62 million kindergarten, elementary, and secondary students and 17 million postsecondary students

(http://-n-c-e-s-.-e-d-.-g-o-v-/-p-r-o-g-r-a-m-s-/-d-i-g-e-s-t-/-d-1-0-/-t-a-b-l-e-s-/-d-t-1-0-_

-0-0-1-.-a-s-p-?-r-e-f-e-r-r-e-r-=-r-e-p-o-r-t). School districts employ over 8 million teachers,

administrators, and other staff to provide elementary and secondary education to the nation's school children, making educators the largest single category of public employees

in the nation.

School districts vary in their size, organizational structure, governance, and mix of federal,

state, and local funding sources. One significant trend, however, is the takeover of local school systems by local governments. About a dozen of the largest school districts in the

country are now under the control of local governments. Boston's mayor was given control

of the schools in 1992, Chicago's in 1995, and New York's in 2002. Washington, D.C.'s mayor has been successful in taking over the school system, and mayors in other major cities are

now considering such a move. The Los Angeles mayor, however, suffered a setback in his

efforts to control the schools when a California court declared unconstitutional a law giving

the mayor substantial control over schools. The mayor has nonetheless been active in the

school quality issue.

Other major types of special purpose governments include public nonprofit corporations

such as economic development corporations and housing finance corporations at the local

and state levels. For example, the City of Baltimore Development Corporation is a nonprofit

corporation chartered by the city to promote economic development by attracting new

business and assisting new and growing companies. Similarly, the City of Houston recently

handed management of its convention and arts venues to a government corporation. Housing finance corporations may, for example, issue housing bonds, offer tax-exempt

financing, or extend other assistance to facilitate the development of low-income housing

and address other housing needs.

Nonprofit Organizations and Associations Increasing numbers of institutions in the American system of public policy fall between what we think of as the “public sector”

and the “private sector.” These institutions may be described as belonging to an

independent or third sector of our economy. For the most part, independent-sector organizations do not have the distribution of profits to shareholders as one of their

major objectives. They exist instead to meet the needs of the public at large, a

particular portion of the public, or the needs and interests of their own members

(Boris, 1999; Salamon, 1999). Technically, nonprofit organizations are defined as those prohibited by law from distributing surplus revenues (profits) to individuals (typically,

members). Such organizations may in fact make a profit; however, the profit must be used for

the purposes of the organization.

Nonprofit organizations may include churches, educational institutions, civic organizations, schools and colleges, charitable organizations, social and recreational groups, health and

human service organizations, membership organizations (including labor unions and

fraternal organizations), conservation and environmental groups, mutual organizations

(including farmers' cooperatives), trade associations, community chests, youth activities

(such as Boy Scouts), community betterment organizations, advocacy groups of all kinds, and

many others. In 2009, the total number of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, including

public charities, private foundations, and other nonprofits such as fraternal organizations and civic leagues, exceeded 1.5 million.

While private nonprofit organizations account for about 9 percent of employment in the

United States (depending again on how you count), the voluntary effort that is expended in

support of these groups makes their impact far greater. Nearly 27 percent of American adults devote volunteer time to such organizations, an investment of time that has been estimated

as the equivalent of over $200 billion a year

(http://-n-c-c-s-.-u-r-b-a-n-.-o-r-g-/-s-t-a-t-i-s-t-i-c-s-/-q-u-i-c-k-f-a-c-t-s-.-c-f-m). Over the last twenty-five years, the third sector has been the fastest-growing segment of our economy.

During the past decade, nonprofit organizations have taken a leading role in the delivery of

public services. As mentioned previously, change in the federal welfare system has led to the

devolution of services to the state and local levels (a trend we will explore later), where

networks of agencies, many of which are nonprofits, manage the implementation of public

programs (Light, 2000). The current system has been characterized as “an extended chain of

implementation,” in which recipients of public support in some cases will “not even

encounter a government employee—federal, state, or local” (Kettl, 2000, pp. 492–493). Moreover, nonprofits have become active in other areas of service delivery, including

hospitals, museums, colleges and universities, the performing arts, religion, advocacy, and

research (Boris, 1999).

Nonprofit organizations can be categorized in many ways, but perhaps most easily according

to their purposes and sources of financial support. Some nonprofits are charitable or public

benefit organizations, which provide services to the public at large or to some segment of the

public. These organizations, such as social service organizations or art museums, may receive some funding from government and some from private contributions; they are

generally tax-exempt under federal statutes. Other nonprofits are advocacy organizations,

groups that espouse a particular cause and seek to lobby for that cause, or mutual benefit organizations, which produce benefits primarily for their members. The former would

include groups like Common Cause and the Sierra Club; the latter would include trade

associations, professional organizations, labor unions, and others that directly promote the

interests of their own members. Obviously, however, from these examples, the line between the two is not completely clear. Finally, churches are obviously charitable organizations, but

are they are difficult to classify in the categories mentioned.

Networking

For information on nonprofit organizations, see the Alliance for Nonprofit Management at

-w-w-w-.-a-l-l-i-a-n-c-e-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services at http://-w-w-w-.-c-o-m-p-a-s-s-p-o-i-n-t-.-o-r-g-/. See also the following sites for information

on foundations: -w-w-w-.-c-o-f-.-o-r-g and -w-w-w-.-f-o-u-n-d-a-t-i-o-n-s-.-o-r-g.

Indeed, the entire “independent sector” is sometimes difficult to categorize. For one thing, the distinctions among the three sectors are not clear, even to the point that a particular

individual might find the same service provided by one or more sectors. For example, you

can play golf at a municipal course (public sector), a private driving range (private sector),

or a country club (independent sector). Furthermore, the sources of funding are often

intermixed. For example, both governments (public sector) and private corporations

(private sector) often contribute financial support to local chambers of commerce.

The fact that nonprofit organizations are required to pursue a public interest is reflected in

their legal structure (and tax-exempt status). Typically, so that government can feel that a

public purpose is being carried out, the organization must be governed by a board of trustees

(or directors or commissioners), whose purpose, at least in legal terms, is to promote and

protect the public interest (Boris, 1999; Salamon, 1999). Such persons will also likely establish the mission and operating policies, hire an executive director, and generally

oversee fiscal and programmatic operations. The executive director is responsible for day-

to-day operations and often becomes the organization's chief spokesperson. Most nonprofit

associations are highly dependent on their executive director's leadership. More and more, such persons (and other major staff persons in nonprofit organizations) are coming from a

background in public administration.

Relationships with the Legislative Body In examining the political context of public organizations, we have thus far emphasized the importance of executive leadership. For example, we noted the emergence of the president

as the chief executive officer of our national government and the pivotal role of the chief

executive in state and local governments and in nonprofit organizations and associations.

But although we tend to associate public agencies with the executive branch of government, there are numerous administrative bodies associated with the legislative and judicial

branches. More importantly, wherever agencies are located, their role in the policy process

will be especially clear in their relationship with the legislature. In discussing the

relationship between public agencies and legislative bodies, we will focus much more

directly on the policy process.

The Policy Process

Before we examine the role of public and nonprofit organizations in developing public policy,

we should review the process by which public policies are developed. We may think of the

policy process as involving five stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy legitimation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation and change. (See the box

“Exploring Concepts: Stages in the Policy Process.”) Whereas public and nonprofit

organizations are the primary actors in implementing public policy (indeed, most of this book focuses on ways to effectively carry out public policy), they are also significant players

in the first two phases.

Exploring Concepts

STAGES IN THE POLICY PROCESS

1. Agenda setting

2. Policy formulation

3. Policy legitimation 4. Policy implementation

5. Policy evaluation and change

SOURCE: Michael E. Kraft and Scott R. Furlong, Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007), pp. 80–85.

Agenda Setting Obviously, before policies are acted upon, they must get the attention

of major decision makers. From among all the many and competing claims on their

time and interests, decision makers must select issues that will be given priority and those that will be filtered out. Through the agenda-setting phase, certain problems come

to be viewed as needing action, whereas others are postponed. Naturally, there is a great deal

of ebb and flow in what is considered most important. In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. foreign

policy was dominated by concerns for Soviet movement into such areas as the Middle East;

in the 1990s attention shifted to a variety of “flash points” such as Somalia and Bosnia. More

recently, foreign policy has focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Similarly,

any particular issue area can gain or decline in prominence over time, as has the attention to energy policy over the last twenty years.

Many people contribute to setting the public policy agenda. The president, for example, has

a special claim on the attention of the American people and their elected representatives; a

presidential speech or press conference can significantly affect what decision makers see as important. But there are many others whose actions can give certain topics greater or lesser

visibility. Members of Congress, executive branch officials, political parties, interest groups,

the media, and the general public can all significantly shape the question of what will be considered important. Think, for example, how concern for teen pregnancy has been recently

brought to public awareness. Who have been the leaders in shaping public opinion on this

issue?

The agenda-setting process may be viewed as the confluence of three streams of events: policy recognition, policy generation, and political action (Kingdon, 1995). The first, policy

recognition, has to do with the way certain topics emerge as significant issues that demand

action. As you can well imagine, decision makers are subject to many influences in choosing

what items are significant. They may respond to particular indicators that come to public view, such as an increase in air traffic problems or a rise in unemployment. Or they may get

feedback on current programs that indicates some need to reassess the status of a particular

issue. Finally, some items are brought to the policy agenda by events that simply demand

attention, such as AIDS in Africa or the damage brought about by hurricanes, tsunamis, or

other natural disasters.

Networking

See the home pages of various “think tanks” such as the Brookings Institution at -w-w-w-.-b-r-o-o-k-i-n-g-s-.-e-d-u and the American Enterprise Institute at

-w-w-w-.-a-e-i-.-o-r-g. Especially interesting is the site for the Urban Institute at

-w-w-w-.-u-r-b-a-n-.-o-r-g.

There are many ways people try to affect the degree of attention given to particular items.

Sometimes called policy entrepreneurs, those who are willing to invest personal time, energy,

and often money in pursuit of particular policy changes can use a variety of personal tactics,

such as publicity campaigns, direct contacts with decision makers (letters, phone calls), petition drives, and many others. Or they can involve themselves in major institutions, such as the media,

political parties, or interest groups, that provide access to decision makers. Election campaigns,

for example, often help clarify or focus the policy agenda.

A second phase of the agenda-setting process may occur almost simultaneously. At the same time that attention is focusing on a particular issue, it is likely that many will be involved in

trying to generate solutions to the problem. Ideas may come from decision makers

themselves, members of their staffs, experts in the bureaucracy, members of the scientific

community, policy think tanks (such as the Brookings Institution or the American Enterprise Institute), or from the public generally. Typically, proposed solutions swirl around through

speeches and articles, papers, and conversations until a few ideas begin to gain special

currency. Most often these will be the ideas that not only seem to correctly address the problem, but also seem to be politically acceptable.

A third stream of events affecting the policy agenda is concerned with political action. For a

proposal to reach the top of the policy agenda, it must be consistent with emerging political

realities. Items that are consistent with the prevailing political climate, those that are favored

by the incumbent administration and legislative majority, and those that have interest group support (or at least lack organized opposition) are more likely to reach the top of the agenda.

These political realities, the proposed ideas or solutions, and the recognition of particular

topics represent streams that must come together at just the right moment for action to

occur. The windows of opportunity for policy action are narrow, and it takes great skill in managing the various streams so that one's interests are best served.

Policy Formulation Formulation of public policy involves the development of formal

policy statements (legislation, executive orders, administrative rules, and so on) that

are viewed as legitimate. Again, we will focus here on policy making by the legislature and on the role of public administrators in the legislative process. The basics of how a

bill becomes law are well known. At the federal level and in most state governments,

a bill is introduced and referred to a committee (and perhaps a subcommittee),

hearings are held, the committee reports to the larger body, a vote is taken in both

houses, a conference committee works out any differences in the two versions, and

the bill is sent to the chief executive for signature. In most other jurisdictions, a

similar, though often simplified, approach is used. In any case, the complexity of the legislative process, and the fact that many different decision points must be passed

before anything is final, mean there are many occasions when those seeking to shape

legislative outcomes can seek to exert their influence.

The president, of course, has both formal and informal means of influencing legislation, most notably through program initiatives and budget proposals. Others in the government,

including many agency personnel, interact with Congress on a regular basis and may also

affect policy outcomes. At the same time, those outside the government—from individual citizens to well-organized interest groups—also seek access and influence. Agency

personnel become involved in the legislative process in several ways. In many cases,

agencies actually send program proposals to the legislature for its consideration. Such

proposals are usually submitted to the legislative leadership and then passed on to the

appropriate committee chairs. Though a member of Congress will actually be the one to

introduce the proposed legislation, that person may depend on those in the agency for

background information and other support. Whether or not legislation has been submitted

by an agency, agency personnel will often be called upon to provide testimony regarding

particular proposals. As you might imagine, those who staff major public agencies constitute

an important source of expertise concerning public issues. For example, it's hard to imagine

a group of people better able to understand the tax laws of a particular state than those who work in the state revenue department.

Over time, the relationship between agency personnel and representatives of Congress

(either members or staff) can become quite strong. After all, the two groups share common

interests and concerns, along with representatives of certain interest groups. A subcommittee on aging, a senior citizen's lobbying organization, and the Social Security

Administration, for example, are likely to agree on the need to protect Social Security

benefits. When the interactions among such interest groups, agency personnel, and members

of Congress become especially frequent and intense, the resulting alliances are sometimes called iron triangles. These coalitions can often exert great, possibly even unwarranted,

influence.

You should be aware of some of the special considerations facing public administrators at

the local level and in nonprofit organizations as they are called upon for advice and help during the process of policy development. As noted, the council-manager form of

government was actually founded on a separation of policy and administration—the council

made policy and the city manager carried it out. Over time, however, many city managers

have become valued by their councils for their expertise in local government and frequently find themselves commenting on or even proposing particular policies. While this situation is

quite at odds with the theory underlying council-manager government, it is the reality in

most council-manager cities. The same is true of executives in nonprofit organizations and

associations. Such situations are not without risk, however, for a delicate balance must be

maintained between the executive and legislative functions. Council or board members who

feel that their policy-making territory has been intruded upon may exercise another of their

council prerogatives: firing the manager or executive!

Policy Legitimation Kraft and Furlong (2007) define policy legitimation as “giving

legal force to decisions or justifying policy action” (p. 86). Legitimation, as the authors

point out, may be seen as both simple and complex. When a policy is approved by a

recognized authority (such as when a bill is passed), then we may talk about a simple process of legitimation. But the authors suggest that legitimation is more about

acceptance of a new policy by the broader public. The process of policy acceptance

should, therefore, be considered from the legal aspect, political culture and values, and the level of popular support. Many times, the authors suggest, politicians bring in

actors or other celebrities to testify in front of congressional committees. Frequent

public meetings and public hearings as well as participation of citizen advisory bodies

are other ways to legitimize policies.

The authors give the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1992 as an example of adopting a law that

was not embraced by the public or interest groups. Since lawmakers were “rushing” to adopt

the new law, they underestimated public unwillingness to accept the new piece of legislation.

The act was revised when “Congress voted to study only one possible site in the nation, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” (p. 87). But this revision again was not embraced by the public

or interest groups, and it was especially opposed by prominent politicians from Nevada. As

a result, almost twenty years later, President Obama stopped funding for Yucca Mountain and initiated an alternative process for identifying repositories for nuclear waste.

The whole process of legitimation, according to Kraft and Furlong (2007, pp. 87–88), is

mostly political. They suggest that lawmakers ask questions before they decide to adopt a

policy. Referring to public opinion poll data, considering the views of interes t groups,

initiating a broad political debate, and developing an ethical analysis of the issue are only

some of the many ways to achieve policy legitimation.

Policy Implementation Members of public and nonprofit organizations play

important roles in building the policy agenda and shaping legislative policy, but they

are also involved in policy making as part of the implementation process. By its very

nature, legislation is general and lacking in detail. Legislators cannot foresee all the individual questions that might come up in implementing a program. Moreover,

legislators don't want to tie the hands of program managers by being too restrictive.

Consequently, legislation typically leaves a great deal of discretion to public managers

in working out the details of a particular program. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, is instructed to prevent deceptive advertising, but it has to decide what is

deceptive; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is asked to define and

set safety standards for the workplace, but it must define more clearly what that

means (Meier, 1987, p. 52). In these and many other cases, managers develop

administrative rules or policies to give detail to the legislation or to fill in the gaps,

and, in effect, they make policy.

Policy implementation is the “set of activities directed toward putting a program into effect” (Jones, cited in Kraft & Furlong, 2007, pp. 82–83). According to Kraft and Furlong, policy

implementation includes organization, interpretation, and application. Organization refers

to the use of resources and methods to administer a particular program. Interpretation

involves translating the language of regulation (or law) into language understandable to the affected parties. Application is the “routine provision of services, payments, or other agreed

upon program objectives or instruments” (pp. 82–83). Policy implementation is the stage of

policy process in which the public sees concrete governmental actions or interventions. Implementation involves following the rules imposed in the law (or the regulation),

developing program details, and then putting them into effect.

A classic case involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illustrates the latitude

administrators are often given by Congress (and other legislative bodies) and the difficulties

it can cause (Reich, 1985). The EPA was required by law to develop national standards

limiting the emission of hazardous air pollutants so as to provide an “ample margin of safety”

to protect the public health. But there was no definition in the legislation of “ample.” The EPA

was left with the task of identifying standards. This question was especially problematic in the case of a copper smelter in Tacoma, Washington. The EPA determined that, in the

absence of any controls on emissions of arsenic from the plant, four new cases of cancer each

year could be expected. Even with the very best control equipment, there would still be one new case each year. On the other hand, requiring actions to eliminate the threat would cost

the company so much money that it could not afford to continue operations and its annual

$23 million payroll would be lost to the Tacoma community. Obviously, then EPA

administrator William Ruckelshaus faced a difficult exercise of discretion. (We'll see in Chapter 7 what he did.)

There have been several recent debates concerning the amount of discretion given to

administrative agencies. Some analysts argue that broad grants of discretion amount to an abdication of legislative power; others point to the advantages of depending on the expertise

and flexibility residing in the agencies or with the executive. Currently, the trend appears to

be in the direction of greater detail in federal legislation, though occasionally less so at other

levels. In any case, there inevitably remain many opportunities for the exercise of administrative discretion.

Policy Evaluation and Change Policy evaluation “is an assessment of whether policies

are working well” (Kraft & Furlong, 2007, p. 84). Policy evaluation asks whether the

policy that is implemented has met the goals and the objectives of the legislation. Cost- benefit analysis is one of the most frequently used methods for evaluating policies, but

there are many others. Evaluation may involve more than technical considerations;

many times, it may involve “political judgments about a program's worth, decisions

that are likely to be of great interest to all policy actors involved. In this sense,

programs are continually, if often informally, evaluated by members of Congress,

interest groups, think tanks, and others” (p. 85).

The purpose of policy evaluation is to determine whether a certain program is effective, that is, whether it produces the intended results. After the evaluation stage, changes in the policy

may be introduced that can expand, reduce, or eliminate the program. But most programs

undergo continuous incremental changes in an effort to make the policy more effective and

more responsive. In this sense, the policy process actually never ends.

Types of Policy

The government develops and carries out several different types of policies, and the

involvement of public and nonprofit organizations in the policy process varies somewhat according to type. We will examine four types: regulatory, distributive, redistributive, and

constituent policy (Meier, 1987). (See the box “Exploring Concepts: Types of Public Policy”)

These classifications are not precise, however, and indeed, many agencies work in several

different areas at the same time.

Exploring Concepts

TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY

6. Regulatory 7. Distributive

8. Redistributive

9. Constituent

Regulatory Policy Regulatory policy is designed to limit the actions of persons or groups so

as to protect the general public or a substantial portion of the public. For example, people are

prohibited from selling certain drugs, polluting the air and water, and engaging in monopolistic

business practices. One form of regulation simply focuses on illegal criminal activity; it is a crime to do certain things. State and local governments have special responsibilities in this

area, and certain federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, are active

here as well. Another form of regulation focuses on American business and seeks to ensure fair

and competitive practices. Indeed, the first major regulatory effort in this country came in 1887, when the federal government created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the

railroads. Similar regulatory agencies today monitor securities (Securities and Exchange

Commission), commodity exchanges (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), and labor

relations (National Labor Relations Board), among others.

A modern regulatory area is concerned with access to certain goods available to the public

generally, such as the airwaves (regulated by the Federal Communications Commission) or

clean air and water (regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency). Other regulatory

bodies focus on protecting health and safety in such areas as consumer protection

(Consumer Product Safety Commission), air travel (Federal Aviation Administration), food

(Food and Drug Administration), and workplace safety (the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration).

Although federal regulation of economic activities has seen several waves of growth through

the past century (Ripley & Franklin, 1987), the last two decades have seen somewhat of a

movement in the opposite direction. Late in the Carter administration and extending through

the Reagan administration, there were several efforts to deregulate certain industries. The Civil Aviation Board was disbanded in 1984, and over the following decade significant areas

of transportation, telecommunications, and banking were deregulated. Moreover,

regulations were eliminated or enforcement slowed down in areas such as workplace, auto, and consumer products safety.

During the 1990s, however, as many federal agencies relaxed their regulatory grip, a few

attempted to expand their authority. The Environmental Protection Agency sought to set

standards for pesticide and cancer risk, while the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration created guidelines for reducing violent crime in retail locations open at night

(Niskanen, 2001). The Food and Drug Administration attempted to expand its jurisdiction to

the tobacco industry by establishing nicotine as a drug, which would have given federal

regulators the power to control tobacco products. This move, however, was challenged by the tobacco companies, and in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled against the federal

government, calling the FDA's attempt to assert jurisdiction in this area “impermissible”

(Kessler, 2001, p. 384). These actions took place during the Clinton administration, which focused its efforts on regulatory changes in several areas, including the environment,

corporate tax shelters, civil rights, trade, transportation, the securities market, banking, food,

drugs, and health-care insurance. The administration used its National Performance Review

to eliminate or rework a number of federal regulations.

Many of the regulatory activities undertaken by the George W. Bush administration were in

response to crises, resulting in rules related to financial institutions, homeland security procedures, corporate governance, and energy. Two other Bush initiatives—No Child Left

Behind and the addition of a drug benefit to Medicare—also involved new regulatory

programs (DeMuth, 2011). The Bush administration also established two sets of guidelines:

one for scientific peer review and the other related to conducting regulatory analysis, which imposed additional obligations for regulatory agencies but at the same time “reinvigorated

the regulatory review process, exhibiting a willingness to return regulations that do not meet

analytical requirements” (Dudley, 2004–2005, p. 9).

The Obama administration approved slightly fewer rules than did the Bush administration in its first years, although the number of “significant” rules—those costing $100 million or

more—increased. The Obama White House has focused on regulations related to health-care

and financial reforms, deep-water oil drilling, the environment, and food recalls. It also has

stepped up enforcement of existing rules (Drajem & Dodge, 2011; The Economist, 2011). As

the administration proceeded, however, there were signs that it was working toward

balancing its regulatory activities with concerns for potential impacts on a weakened

economy (Meckler & Lee, 2011).

Distributive Policy Distributive policy, perhaps the most common form of government policy,

uses general tax revenues to provide benefits to individuals or groups, often by means of grants

or subsidies. If the country faces a large agricultural surplus, for example, the federal

government may provide incentive payments to farmers to not produce crops that would add to the surplus. Similarly, the federal government provides direct grants to state and local

governments for a variety of purposes. Finally, governments often create “public goods” that all

citizens can enjoy. In some cases, such as national defense, the good is provided for all; in others, such as city, state, or national parks, it is anticipated that some citizens will use the benefit and

others will not. (In Chapter 3, we will examine the growing trend toward employing user fees

for certain of these traditionally public goods.) Unlike regulatory agencies, which are often

at odds with the clientele group they are seeking to regulate, agencies that carry out

distributive policies often develop close relationships with their constituencies and, in turn,

with interested members of Congress. The growth of veterans' benefits over the past several

decades is an almost classic example of the operation of such a subgovernment. The

Department of Veterans Affairs is now one of the largest federal agencies and provides a

broad range of health benefits, educational assistance, pensions, and insurance for veterans.

Such a development would not have been possible without its close relationship with

veterans' groups (such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) and with the veterans' committees in Congress.

Redistributive Policy Redistributive policies take taxes from certain groups and give them to

another group. On rare occasions, redistribution is from the less-well-off to the better-off; many

charge that capital gains proposals are of this type. Redistribution is, however, generally thought of as benefiting less advantaged groups at the perceived expense of the advantaged.

Among major redistributive policies are those that deal with (1) income stabilization, helping

to support those who are unemployed or retired; (2) social welfare, providing either direct

payments to individuals or supporting state and local efforts for the indigent; and (3) health- care programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare. Most federal agencies active in the

redistributive area are located in the Department of Health and Human Services, which claims

its mission to be “the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of

all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves” (http://-w-w-w-.h-h-s-.-g-o-v-/-a-b-o-u-t-/).

Since redistributive policies are often (though sometimes incorrectly) viewed in win-lose

terms—that is, if one group benefits, another will surely lose—they generate perhaps more

intense discussion than any other area of public policy. Despite this controversy, every American president since Roosevelt and prior to Reagan has supported some major

redistributive effort. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, however, took the opposite

position, seeking to limit and even reduce redistributive programs. The reform agenda also

influenced President Clinton, whose pledge to “end welfare as we know it” resulted in

legislation placing a five-year cap on public assistance and tying welfare benefits to a work

requirement. President George W. Bush continued this trend by advancing a $1.3 trillion tax

cut and encouraging Congress to trim federal spending. In addition, President Bush implemented a faith-based initiative designed to employ private and nonprofit organizations

in the delivery of social services, under which federal, state, and local governments sought

to recruit, train, and assist religious groups to provide a broad array of social services. The

Obama administration did an about-face, taking on the issue of economic inequality through its efforts to pass the health-care bill—the first major social legislation in decades—and a

push for increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. These moves signaled the Obama

administration's commitment to moving the country away from the “hands-off” legacy of the Reagan years (Leonhardt, 2010). Clearly President Obama's tax plan for rolling back the

Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will continue this trend.

Constituent Policy Constituent policies (Lowi, 1972, p. 300) are intended to benefit the public

generally or to serve the government. Foreign and defense policies are good examples of the

first set of constituent policies, as well as good examples of the operations of a significant

subgovernment. The Air Force had lobbied since the 1960s to build the B-1 bomber as a

mainstay of our air defense. In 1978, President Carter was able to “kill” the B-1; however, only

three years later, a combination of Department of Defense officials, representatives from the

defense industry (especially contractors), and congressional supporters of increased military

capabilities helped President Reagan resurrect the B-1. Incidentally, although more than a

hundred B-1 bombers were built and were in service at one time, even today the B-1 remains controversial, with some proposals to retire the final sixty-six bombers facing opposition from

military analysts and politicians, especially those with bombers based in their home states

(http://-w-w-w-.-t-i-m-e-.-c-o-m-/-t-i-m-e-/-n-a-t-i-o-n-/-a-r-t-i-c-l-e-/-0-,-8-5-9-9-,-2-0-0-

0-0-2-0-,-0-0-.-h-t-m-l).

The other set of constituent policies are those directed toward the agencies of government

itself. Legislation affecting the structure and function of government agencies, as well as

policies governing their operations, falls in this area. President Carter was especially

interested in policies impacting government agencies and was instrumental in such changes as a reorganization of the federal personnel system and a reemphasis on affirmative action

in hiring practices. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush were more interested in

matters of technical efficiency and problems of waste in government. President Clinton, early

in his term, expressed an interest in managerial issues, pledging to implement some version of Total Quality Management in the federal government, as he had done in Arkansas, and

later developed the National Performance Review to make government work better and cost

less (a topic we will examine in detail later). More recently, President George W. Bush placed

an emphasis on developing more efficient, businesslike practices of government through a top-down performance system tied to the budget. President Obama has engaged in what has

been called a “stealth revolution” in the way government works, quietly emphasizing new

technology, the use of White House czars for different policy areas, and new levels of

openness and transparency (Kettl, 2011).

Sources of Bureaucratic Power

There are several reasons governmental agencies have become so influential in the policy

process. First, those who staff the agencies constitute an enormous source of expertise with respect to their areas of interest. No president, governor, mayor, or legislator could ever be

expected to gain comparable expertise in all areas. Consequently, to make informed

decisions, elected officials must often rely on those in the various agencies. It is often said that information is power; the information that is stored in government agencies is a distinct

source of power.

What Would You Do?

You are testifying before a congressional committee in support of an increase in your

agency's budget so that you can better investigate intellectual property claims involving

software development. It is clear that one member of the committee, who is very supportive

of the increase, really doesn't understand what's going on, and if he did, he might not support

the budget increase. What would you do?

Second, as noted earlier, legislation is often both inevitably and intentionally vague, leaving considerable discretion to the administrator. In some cases, legislators simply wish to defer

to the expertise of those in the agencies to provide detailed rules and interpretations. In

others, they are recognizing the necessity of some flexibility in administering public programs. In still others, they are responding to the pressures of the legislative process itself,

where specificity leads to disputes and vagueness can often promote agreement.

Administrative discretion is also necessary because changing conditions necessitate

changing policies, and it is not always possible to wait for new laws to be passed.

Third, flexibility is also needed as new information is discovered. For example, a few years

ago, the surgeon general sent a brochure to all households in the country outlining the latest

information about AIDS, an action not mandated by Congress but, in the judgment of the

surgeon general, required by emerging events.

Through their expertise and discretionary power, those in public agencies help shape public

policy. But there are more active and more political ways in which certain agencies become

involved in the policy process. Whereas all agencies participate in making policy at some

level, some agencies clearly are more politically adept than others. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, both wield considerable

power, whereas the Government Printing Office has little.

The power, influence, and, in turn, the resources an agency is able to generate depend on

several factors, some external to the agency, some internal. Obviously, shifts in public opinion concerning the agency's tasks are likely to affect the support the agency receives.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has experienced wide variations in

public support over the years, riding a crest of popularity with the first lunar landing but later coming under special scrutiny in the wake of the Challenger disaster. More recently, the

agency has been fighting for a new identity following the end of the shuttle program. Not

surprisingly, there seems to be a close correlation between favorable public opinion

concerning an agency's area of interest and the support it receives from Congress.

More specific support comes from clientele groups, members of the legislature, and others

in the executive branch. We have already noted the support certain agencies receive from

clientele groups who benefit from the agencies' actions. Obviously, the larger and more

powerful the supporters of the agency are, the more powerful the agency is likely to be. But agencies also develop opposition, which can be damaging to their programs. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, interacts with many different groups,

including businesses, state environmental agencies, members of the scientific community, and groups like the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation; the EPA is likely to

receive support from some groups and opposition from others.

Special support can also come from individual members of the legislature who decide, for

whatever reason, to champion an agency's cause. But, as we have seen, the combination of congressional and clientele support can lead to the development of “subgovernments” within

particular policy areas. These subgovernments come about, in part, because each group has

something to give and something to gain from the relationship. The agency can provide quick

and favorable responses to congressional requests for help as well as rulings favorable to

clientele groups. In return, the agency might receive support for expansion of its budget and

programs.

Support may also come from other members of the executive branch. Presidential support is obviously important, whether it is diffuse support of an agency's general work or more

specific, such as in a president's support for stem cell research, increased drug enforcement,

or a particular new weapons system. But agencies are also attentive to their relationships

with other agencies. The development of a new state park may raise environmental issues,

economic development issues, and health issues. The parks department will clearly fare

better if all the relevant groups and agencies are “on board.”

For nonprofit organizations, the capacity to influence public policy tends to be limited as

much by informal as formal mandates. Although federal law does set guidelines for the use

of public and charitable resources for lobbying purposes, some nonprofit leaders assume

that these limitations prevent them from representing their constituents' interests in policy decision making. Or they refrain from taking a stand on issues so as not to isolate themselves

from opposing parties. Philanthropy groups, such as the Independent Sector with its Charity

Lobbying in the Public Interest initiative, have launched campaigns to encourage nonprofit

leaders to be more proactive in their lobbying and to expand the advocacy role of nonprofits in the public policy process. The Internal Revenue Service has assisted in this effort by

making available a simplified set of guidelines from the federal tax code that nonprofits can

use to map their lobbying strategies.

In addition to the external sources of bureaucratic power, there are several internal sources

of power. We have already noted the importance of the information and expertise of agency

personnel. Especially in highly technical areas, such as medicine or agricultural economics,

agency personnel are likely to be far more knowledgeable than many others involved in setting policies and priorities. If they can employ their expertise credibly, demonstrating

effective performance over time, the agency will surely benefit.

Networking

For information on the advocacy role of nonprofit organizations, see Center for Lobbying in

the Public Interest at -w-w-w-.-c-l-p-i-.-o-r-g-. A copy of the Nonprofit Lobbying Guide can be

downloaded at

http://-w-w-w-.-i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t-s-e-c-t-o-r-.-o-r-g-/-l-o-b-b-y-_-g-u-i-d-e.

Agencies are also likely to benefit by their cohesion—the degree to which members are uniformly committed to the organization and its goals. An agency that is seen as divided over

major issues will suffer a loss of credibility. Conversely, a sense of unity within an agency is

likely to make the agency more effective, both internally and externally.

Finally, agencies benefit from strong and effective leadership. For example, as secretary of state in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton played a strong leadership role in U.S.

policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, while using her political experience and skills in

dealing effectively with Congress. Similarly, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates enjoyed

widespread respect from members of both political parties.

The power of particular agencies, therefore, is the result of interaction between the agency

and its environment, a process to which the agency brings certain strengths, but it must also

exercise considerable skill to reach its goals. The external support an agency can generate and the internal combination of its knowledge, cohesion, and leadership affect the amount

of power and influence it can command.

Legislative Supervision: Structural Controls

Whatever an agency's degree of power and influence, however, that power and influence must be exercised judiciously. The agency is a creation of the legislature, and its programs

are always subject to the legislature's review, alteration, and even termination. Obviously,

most governmental programs (and the agencies that administer them) first take shape in the

legislative process. In response to public demands, and perhaps also executive leadership,

Congress or a state legislature or a city council or a board of directors passes legislation or

policies to correct a particular problem. The problems vary widely, from federal

environmental policy to state education requirements to local trash collection practices to the establishment of local health centers, but in most cases legislation authorizes the

program. Typically, especially in larger jurisdictions, money to operate the program is

authorized separately through an appropriations process. With a program authorized and

money appropriated, the building (or expansion) of a public organization can commence.

Networking

For information on Congress, see -w-w-w-.-l-o-c-.-g-o-v-/-i-n-d-e-x-.-h-t-m-l for the Library

of Congress; -w-w-w-.-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v for the House; and -w-w-w-.-s-e-n-a-t-e-.-g-o-v for

the Senate.

Legislation is, however, somewhat limited as a device for controlling the day-to-day activities of public organizations, especially at the federal and state levels. Remember that legislation

is usually intentionally vague at some points, but legislation can be used as a control device.

After a program is under way, legislation may be passed to prevent members of the executive branch from taking certain actions (Meier, 1987, pp. 140–141). For example, the Boland

Amendment sought to prevent covert action in support of the Contras in Nicaragua in the

mid-1980s. Whereas legislation authorizing programs must inevitably be somewhat general,

legislative prohibitions on administrative actions can be quite specific. In 2007, the Congress

sought legislative means to stop the Bush “surge” of troops being sent to Iran. However, as

both these cases demonstrated, members of an administration may go to great lengths to

reinterpret legislation to avoid even fairly specific prohibitions.

Legislative Veto One specific device legislatures employ to control public agencies is the legislative veto, a statutory provision that essentially says that any action proposed by the

executive (or administrative agency) under provisions of a particular piece of legislation is

subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress (or some portion of Congress), usually within thirty to ninety days. For example, legislation might authorize a new highway program but

require legislative consent to undertake specific projects. The legislative veto was first used in

the 1930s to permit the president to reorganize, subject to review by Congress. In the 1970s and

early 1980s, however, the legislative veto began to be used in many other areas.

In one case, Congress gave the Immigration and Naturalization Service the power to regulate

immigration but retained the power to reverse its decisions. In this case that found its way

to the Supreme Court as Immigration and Naturalization Services v. Chadha (1983), the Court

ruled the legislative veto unconstitutional. The Court argued that the constitutional process for passing legislation requires the involvement of the president and that actions under a

legislative veto provision violate the separation of powers by failing to involve the executive.

Despite the unconstitutionality of the legislative veto, the interest of Congress in controlling

the work of administrative agencies has not diminished. Indeed, Congress has found a variety of ways to get around the Chadha ruling, either informally, by adding detailed rules to

legislative authorizations, or by simply continuing to include veto provisions in legislation

despite the Court's ruling. In the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress approved a

legislative review process that, although providing a veto alternative, would not be open to the types of legal challenges that limited previous procedures (Cooper, 2000, p. 172).

It should be noted that the question of legislative control over administrative agencies is not

limited to the federal government. At the state level, the use of the legislative veto has been growing rapidly, and many states have adopted the veto either in the form of legislation or

as part of state administrative procedures. Moreover, while state courts have reinforced the

principles of Chadha (the Chadha ruling in a federal case does not itself limit the use of the

legislative veto at the state level), state lawmakers continue to employ vetolike actions in their processes of legislative review (Cooper, 2000, p. 172).

Sunset Laws Another control device that legislatures employ to assess the

performance of agencies and to eliminate those that are not successful is the sunset

law. Sunset laws are based on the assumption that certain governmental programs should periodically terminate, to continue only after an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and

a specific vote by the legislature. A classic case on the problem of program continuation is the

military commissary system, which was created to provide foodstuffs to the cavalry on the Western Plains in the 1800s. The program continues today, although nearly all military

commissaries are within ten miles of two or more supermarkets!

Sunset laws became popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s, after the state of Colorado, at

the urging of Common Cause, passed a set of laws requiring that certain regulatory agencies be terminated at a given point unless given new life by the legislature. Soon dozens of other

states and many municipalities passed general sunset laws, applying termination dates to a

set of programs, or included sunset provisions in legislation creating new programs.

Proposals containing sunset provisions were also presented at the federal level.

The purpose of specifying a particular life span for a program is to force careful evaluation

of the program at some future point. Critics of automatic terminations point out several

problems, not the least of which is the cost of evaluations and the burden to the legislature and legislative staff if all programs were periodically evaluated in great detail. Questions also

arise about whether sunset legislation actually changes our assumptions about continuing

most programs; for example, no one would seriously anticipate that a police or fire

department would be eliminated. Finally, critics point out that most programs are reviewed

periodically anyway and that highly ineffective programs are often eliminated even without

“sunset” provisions.

A recent example of a sunset provision occurred when a sunset deadline for the Bush tax cuts

was reached. In 2001, Congress acted to phase in key elements of the Bush administration's

$1.3 trillion tax cut over a ten-year period, but it established a sunset deadline for the end of

the tenth year. When that deadline arrived in 2011, Congress, as part of the debt ceiling debate, had to act positively to maintain the cuts, though they still remained a significant

political issue.

Sunshine Laws These examples of constraints on the operation of government

agencies are closely related to sunshine laws, which require various agencies, especially regulatory agencies, to conduct business in public view (except under specific conditions). For

example, Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine Law provides the public the right of access to

governmental proceedings at the state, county, and municipal levels, as well as in other political subdivisions, such as authorities and special districts. This law requires that any gathering of

two or more members of any board or commission be subject to the requirements of the

Sunshine Law if they discuss any matter that will, in the foreseeable future, come before that

board for action. The three basic requirements of the law are that (1) meetings must be open to the public, (2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given, and (3) minutes of the

meetings must be taken. In effect, the law prohibits members of any board or commission from

having informal or casual discussions of board business outside an open public meeting for

which reasonable notice was given.

All fifty states now have “sunshine” provisions for their own legislative bodies,

administrative agencies, and local governments. In all these cases, the legislative body, in

expressing its concern for the public's right to be informed about the public's business, has exercised control over a broad range of administrative agencies.

Agency Conduct A final mechanism through which legislative bodies formally exert

control over administrative agencies is passage of broad legislation to govern agency

conduct. Such legislation, applicable to all agencies, might affect administrative procedures, contracting or purchasing arrangements, human resources management,

or other areas. A good example is the continuing congressional interest in access to

governmental information. Following World War II, governmental agencies, probably

in keeping with the military mentality of the war years, could legally classify as

“confidential” all records for which there was “good cause” to hold them secret. As you

can imagine, it was not difficult to come up with all kinds of “good causes” or reasons

to withhold records. The practice of keeping secrets became so widespread that one congressional investigating group found that the Pentagon had classified as secret the

construction of the bow and arrow and the fact that water runs downhill! Similarly,

the General Services Administration had decided that photographs could not be taken

in federal buildings without permission of the janitor (Archibald, 1979, p. 314).

What Would You Do?

You are the superintendent of schools in an urban school district. The mayor has approached

you about using two of your high school gyms to house a nighttime recreational basketball

league for inner-city youth. You are concerned that there could be serious damage to the

gyms themselves and that the school buildings nearby would become a target for graffiti.

What would you do?

As a result of findings such as these, and in the belief that the public has the right to information gathered by the government, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) in 1966. The law was based on the assumption that the public has the right to know,

except in clearly defined and exceptional cases; in other words, it tried to prevent those in

the executive branch from classifying documents for ill-defined purposes. Implementation of the new law was hindered by confusion about certain parts and by some agency officials

who still tried to maintain as much secrecy as possible. These problems were addressed in a

series of amendments in 1974, 1986, and 1996. The amendments required agencies to respond to inquiries quickly and even sought to penalize government officials who hid

government records from the public.

Although problems with the act have persisted, nearly all federal agencies have now

implemented the FOIA provisions. In fact, processing and responding to FOIA requests have

become a substantial activity in federal agencies. The importance of doing so has been

reinforced by the Obama administration in a memo to federal agencies stating: “The

Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of

doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures

might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears”

(http://w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-t-h-e-_-p-r-e-s-s-_-o-f-f-i-c-e-/-F-r-e-e-d-o-m- o-f-I-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n-A-c-t-/).

Legislative Supervision: Oversight

In addition to the “structural” mechanisms for legislative control, the legislature also

exercises continuing supervision of administrative agencies through what is called the oversight function. Each house of Congress has a government operations committee charged

with overseeing the activities of all government agencies, including their relationships with

other levels of government. In addition, each of the other congressional committees exercises oversight responsibility with respect to its particular area of interest and expertise

(such as defense, welfare, the post office). Oversight is especially connected to the legislative

and appropriations processes, but it may occur at any time. For this reason, it is not unusual

to see a cabinet secretary, complete with charts and documents, testifying before a

congressional committee that is interested in his or her programs.

Holding hearings is probably the most visible oversight activity of Congress, at times

assuming a circuslike atmosphere. The Iran-Contra hearings, for example, were essentially an investigation of the activities of the National Security Council, an executive agency, but

they became the arena for considerable political infighting concerning the Reagan

administration's conduct of foreign policy. The exposure that hearings provide members of

Congress is obvious. Politicians from Harry Truman to Fred Thompson have built national reputations through their involvement in congressional hearings. But hearings can also

provide excellent opportunities for administrative officials at the federal, state, and local

levels, and in nonprofit organizations, to tell their side of the story, to help educate members

of the legislature and the public generally, and to build support for their programs. Consequently, most agencies devote considerable time and attention to legislative relations,

often—at the federal level—working through a legislative liaison office or—at the state and

local levels—on a more individual basis.

Perhaps the most extraordinary example of legislative oversight of the executive occurred in

1998–1999, when Congress impeached, and then acquitted, President Clinton on charges

stemming from an adulterous affair with a White House intern. The House of

Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against the president, claiming that he perjured himself in his testimony before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed

justice by interfering with the investigation of the independent council, Ken Starr. However,

the Senate voted to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment, a decision that in

many ways brought to a close eight years of allegations and investigations.

Nationally, Congress can also exercise oversight through its staff agencies, most of which

were significantly enhanced by legislation in the early 1970s that created the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO). The CBO was charged with furnishing certain program information to Congress. At about the same time, Congress shifted the focus of the GAO from its traditional

financial auditing to program evaluations. Now, in addition to holding hearings, Congress can

exercise oversight responsibility through staff evaluations of agency operations by

requesting information from the Congressional Budget Office or by initiating audits or

program evaluations by the GAO. Although legislative staff capabilities at the state and local

levels are considerably less and often focused more on policy development than oversight,

all levels of government have witnessed a general increase in legislative staff over the last

twenty years.

Finally, there are myriad informal relationships between legislators and those in executive

agencies. In fact, such nonstatutory controls may be the most common form of congressional

oversight.

Despite the array of oversight activities available to members of Congress and despite the

increased staff resources committed to oversight, questions remain concerning the

effectiveness of legislative oversight of executive branch operations. Part of the problem is

simply that many legislators have relatively little interest in oversight activities. Instead, they tend to focus on policy issues, recognizing that they are much more likely to build their

reputations in the policy arena than in oversight. Moreover, interest in oversight activities is

likely to vary from time to time, increasing in times of crisis or public outcry, when new and different program requests are forthcoming from an agency or when a member feels a

particular agency has not been responsive to constituent groups. Generally, when a member

has high confidence in a set of leaders and tends to agree with policies, the motivation for

oversight decreases; conversely, when trust is low or when the member's favored programs are being ignored, the incentive for oversight is greater.

Legislative Supervision: Casework

Legislators also interact with those in public agencies on an individual basis, usually on behalf of their constituents. Obviously, legislators who wish to be reelected must be attentive

to requests for information or influence from those in their districts. On the other side of the

coin, individual citizens have come to expect that they can and should receive help from their

senator or representative in dealings with government. Thus, members of the legislature receive a multitude of requests for assistance, from someone who needs help to collect Social

Security benefits to someone who hopes to influence the award of a particular governmental

contract. Intervention on behalf of individuals or groups that need assistance with or access

to government agencies is called legislative casework.

At the federal level, providing services for constituents has become one of the most time-

consuming and important activities for Congress members. Requests for assistance are

typically handled by congressional staff members who specialize in casework. If the request

requires an inquiry into an agency activity, the staffer will likely approach the agency's

congressional liaison office or perhaps go directly to the agency head or a regional office. In

most instances, inquiries are responded to promptly, and information about the case and any

necessary explanations of the agency's action are returned quickly to the member of Congress.

Federal officials, in both the legislature and the agencies, feel the process is useful not only

in providing a mechanism for review, but also in clarifying agency policies and procedures

and assessing agency performance. Occasionally, however, there is pressure to “bend the rules” or to use political favoritism. Several years ago, for example, Congressman Daniel

Flood of Pennsylvania was charged with conspiracy, bribery, and perjury in connection with

his efforts to obtain certain federal grants and loans for a hospital in his district.

Casework activities seem less routine and institutionalized at the state and local levels. Here there appear to be both benefits and costs. On the one hand, casework activities serve to

“humanize” the bureaucracy; on the other, there are disadvantages in the disruption of

administrative processes and in the possibility of political influence. Certainly in the more

highly professionalized governmental agencies, agency heads view legislators' involvement

positively.

In many European countries and in some American states and localities, the legislature's

casework function has been paralleled or even turned over to the office of the ombudsman, a permanent office that receives complaints and acts on behalf of citizens in securing

information, requesting services, or pursuing grievances. Many other jurisdictions have created

similar, though less formal, structures, such as public advocates, citizens' assistance offices, and

so on.

Relationships with the Judiciary The doctrine of separation of powers underlies the relationship between administrative

agencies and the judiciary, a relationship that derives from the legal foundations of administrative actions. Agencies are created through legislative acts that define an agency's

structure and scope of authority. Although the authority invested in agencies is primarily

administrative, or executive, in nature, legislative bodies also delegate quasi-legislative and

quasi-judicial responsibilities to agencies, giving them the unique ability to perform functions of all three branches of government. As we saw in previous sections, the executive

and legislative branches employ various devices to serve as a check on agency conduct. The

judiciary also plays an important role in this process by interpreting legislative mandates and delegation to agencies and reviewing the appropriateness of agency actions (Hall, 2006).

Actions that are quasi-legislative elaborate the details of legislation (rule making) while

those that are quasi-judicial involve proceedings that produce some type of order

(adjudication). Another area in which the courts may become involved concerns agency discretion. Because informal actions constitute the vast majority of what agencies do, they

often require a substantial amount of discretion. Judicial review may be used to ensure that

this discretion is used appropriately, although such review is limited.

Quasi-Legislative Action

As we have noted, most legislation is necessarily and intentionally general, leaving

considerable room for interpretation or discretion on the part of the administrator. For

example, an agency might be required by law to set safety standards for nuclear-powered electric utilities but receive little guidance about which specific standards should be

employed. The agency would seek to determine appropriate standards and then develop

rules to govern implementation of the legislation. Rule making is concerned with establishing

general guidelines that would apply to a class of people or a class of actions in the future.

At the federal level, rule making by administrative agencies, as well as many other aspects of

administrative law, is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). (Similar statutes

exist in each state to provide the legal framework for administrative actions.) Adopted in

1946, the act seeks to ensure that agencies keep the public informed about their

organization, procedures, and rules; that there is public participation in rule making; that

there are uniform standards for formal rule making and adjudication; and that the extent of

judicial review is defined (Funk, Lubbers, & Pou, 2008, p. 2).

Challenges to the APA have centered on issues of regulatory reform, including efforts by

Congress to curb the powers of administrative agencies. The courts, however, remain

favorable to the APA and in recent years have sustained the act's administrative framework.

So while the legislative debate goes on, the APA continues to be the primary guide for the practice of administration.

In most cases, rule making is fairly straightforward, involving notice, comment, and steps to

ensure an adequate record; in others, legislation requires greater detail and great formality

in the rule-making process. Food and Drug Administration regulations and others that involve high risks require a formal rule-making process. Formal rule-making procedures

require that the agency issue its rule only after trial-type hearing procedures are completed.

Networking

For the Supreme Court, go to -w-w-w-.-s-u-p-r-e-m-e-c-o-u-r-t-.-g-o-v-/. For legal research on issues of administrative law, go to

http://-p-u-b-l-i-c-.-f-i-n-d-l-a-w-.-c-o-m-/-l-i-b-r-a-r-y-/-p-a---a-d-m-i-n-i-s-t-r-a-t-i-v-e--

-l-a-w-.-h-t-m-l.

Several important provisions have been added to the APA, including measures that reduced regulatory demands in some circumstances involving smaller for-profit, nonprofit, and

public-sector organizations. The first of these changes appeared in the APA as part of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in 1980. Under the RFA, administrative agencies not only

must take into account the impact of new regulations on smaller agencies but also must

ensure a requisite level of flexibility in the rules to accommodate agency compliance and

reporting without adding to administrative costs. In 1996, Congress expanded the RFA by

adding three statutes and approving a legislative review process for proposed regulations. With the review process, lawmakers would now have a window of opportunity to adopt a

“resolution of disapproval” prior to final decision making (Cooper, 2000, p. 139).

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 created mechanisms for resolving disputes that

would not require formal legal processes. Essentially, negotiated rule making brings together various parties involved in a particular issue to discuss potential rules and to try to

arrive at a consensus in advance of the structure and content of those rules. Like other forms

of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, no agency is forced to use these

techniques; however, many public agencies find it helpful to do so (Funk, Lubbers, & Pou, 2008).

Quasi-Judicial Action

In addition to rule making, agencies can make policy through the use of adjudication, or proceedings that produce orders relating to individual cases. For example, following the

issuance of safety standards for nuclear power plants, an administrator might have to decide

if a particular plant has met those standards. Similarly, an administrator might have to decide if a specific individual is eligible for workers' compensation. In such cases, the administrator

is making decisions that determine one's status under the law. The substantive decisions are

obviously important, but so are the procedures under which they are resolved. For example,

a woman denied welfare support might request a hearing to argue her case before a final decision is made. The administrator's decision to grant or refuse the hearing represents a

type of adjudication.

In quasi-judicial administrative actions, there is a desire that citizens be treated fairly and

not subjected to arbitrary decisions. This issue involves questions about who has the right to a hearing, at what stage in the process is a hearing appropriate, and what procedural rules

should apply (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005, p. 8). Consequently, where standards of due process

are applied, notice of the proposed action must be given, there must be a chance for the

affected party to respond, and there must be an independent decision maker and an

opportunity for appeal.

Log in to -w-w-w-.-c-e-n-g-a- g-e-.-c-o-m and open CourseReader to access the reading:

Read “Judicial Review of Administrative Action,” by Logan E. Sawyer III. We have examined the relationship between administrative agencies and the judiciary, a relationship that is quite complex but very important. One aspect of that relationship is judicial review of administrative actions.

How do you understand the role of discretion and regulation on behalf of administrative agencies? What is the role of the courts in reviewing discretion and regulation? What position with respect to the courts' review of administrative action would you take if you were a member of the Supreme Court? What position would you take if you were head of an administrative agency?

Agency Discretion

Most observers agree that in order to do their jobs effectively, public administrators need a

certain amount of discretion, or “the authority to choose between two or more alternatives”

(Hall, 2006, p. 34). However, excessive discretion can lead to arbitrariness and the violation

of individual rights, while too little discretion can result in inflexibility. Informal agency

action carries few procedural restrictions in terms of protecting individuals, which, in turn,

places little restraint on discretion, and in certain areas discretion is accorded to

administrators by law. Consequently, administrators often have considerable latitude in making judgments.

Judicial Review

The courts may review administrative actions (in rule making, adjudication, or other areas)

through judicial review. Such review typically occurs when a party “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action” seeks judicial

remedy (5 U.S.C., Section 702). The court reviews the case in light of constitutional, statutory,

and executive provisions and determines the appropriateness of the administrative action.

Courts may find unlawful and set aside agency actions that are unconstitutional, that extend

beyond the limits of statutory authority, that are “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” or that are procedurally unfair or without substantive justification (5 U.S.C.,

Section 706).

The authority of the court to review administrative action is derived from both statute and

common law. The APA stipulates that judicial review can be denied when statutory provisions prohibit review and when “agency action is committed to agency discretion by

law” (5 U.S.C., Section 701), although the latter has been interpreted narrowly by the courts

(Hall, 2006). One of the key aspects of the relationship between the courts and agencies is

the amount of deference the courts should give agencies in their interpretation of statutes. This question applies to an agency's interpretation of both the “scope of its jurisdiction” and

the “substantive provisions” under its originating statute (Heinzerling & Tushnet, 2006, p.

378). This is a particularly thorny issue when Congress is unclear in its intent with regard to

an agency's jurisdiction. However, following the Supreme Court's finding in Chevron v.

National Resources Defense Council (1984), if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to

the issue at hand, the agency's interpretation of the statute must be upheld if its

interpretation is a reasonable one.

The deference to administrators underlying Chevron stems from the Court's belief that an

administrative agency responsible for implementing a piece of legislation has the most

knowledge of the policy and of existing legislation concerning the issue. The courts may

ultimately disagree with the agency interpretation, but they start with a heavy presumption that the agency was correct. Although Chevron has been called into question, subsequent

Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the doctrine of judicial deference to administrative

agencies. On the other hand, the courts have established parameters for Chevron, limiting the standard to regulatory measures and to circumstances in which the administering agency

clearly acts within the confines of the statute. The courts have maintained that petitions

regarding administrative issues, but whose primary concerns relate to legal matters such as

contracts, should be viewed as “a question of law clearly within the competence of the

courts” (Cooper, 2000 p. 254). Despite these limitations, the courts have been consistent in

reinforcing the Chevron doctrine.

That is not to say that courts always rule in favor of the administrative agency. Of particular

interest are those cases in which the court determines that the agency has misinterpreted (or gone beyond) the intent of the legislation. For example, the statute creating the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) charged the agency with developing

a standard for toxic substances in the workplace “which assures, to the extent feasible, that no employee will suffer material impairment even if such employee has regular exposure to

the hazard for the period of his working life” (Cooper, 1983, p. 192). After extensive studies,

OSHA determined that exposure to the toxic substance benzene created a risk of cancer and

other health hazards and set a standard accordingly.

In response, the American Petroleum Institute sought judicial review that led the courts to a

discussion of two issues. A lower court focused on legislative intent, finding that the phrase “to the extent feasible” in the legislation meant that a standard had to be both technologically

and economically feasible. For this reason, the court set aside the OSHA standard. The

Supreme Court concentrated on the health aspects of the case, with the majority concluding

that existing standards were not dangerous and the new standard was not necessary. The justices who dissented argued that the Court should not substitute its own judgment on the

technical merits of the case for that of experts within the agency. The case illustrates several

of the most important difficulties that face the courts in reviewing administrative actions

(Cooper, 2000).

The courts have acted not only to review agency actions but also to compel agency action

“unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” (5 U.S.C., Section 706). In one example, the

Food and Drug Administration received a petition from a group of death row inmates to

determine whether the materials used for lethal injections were safe and painless or whether

they might leave the prisoner conscious but paralyzed, a witness to his or her own slow

death. The FDA argued that it did not have jurisdiction to review the practices of state

corrections systems in cases such as this; however, on review, the circuit court in 1983 concluded that the FDA did indeed have jurisdiction. The court wrote, “In this case FDA is

clearly refusing to exercise enforcement discretion because it does not wish to become

embroiled in an issue so morally and emotionally troubling as the death penalty. As a result

of the FDA's inaction, appellants face the risk of cruel execution” (Cooper, 1985, p. 649). However, in a 2004 case involving an attempt to force the Bureau of Land Management to

take action to protect wilderness lands in Utah from damage by off-road vehicles, the

Supreme Court ruled that such attempts are limited to cases in which an agency fails to take a discrete action that is required by law.

Closely related to the FDA's failure to undertake an investigation are cases in which the

agency refuses to make rules or delays the issuance of rules required by statute. But there

also have been several cases in which agencies have been found to have exceeded their

authority in rescinding previously established rules.

Concerns for Due Process

At the heart of our system of jurisprudence is the assurance that people will be treated fairly,

that they have a right to present arguments and evidence in their own behalf, and that those who make the decisions will be unbiased and impartial. With regard to issues of due process

in administrative adjudication—whether a hearing is required, at what point, and the format

of the hearing—some patterns have emerged in the Supreme Court's evaluation of administrative matters. During the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, the Court sought to

protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary action on the part of administrative agencies by

requiring that a person be allowed an opportunity to challenge a proposed action before

being made to suffer serious harm. The Court would not allow cost or inconvenience to the

agency as an excuse for causing harm to an individual.

Through the 1970s and 1980s, however, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief

Justice Warren Burger, began to alter its approach to administrative due process, treating

administrative hearings not as a means of protection, but as devices for fact-finding. Most

frequently, the Court has employed a “balancing test,” weighing the interests of the individual (rather narrowly defined), the value of additional safeguards, and the

government's interest (including the fiscal and administrative burdens that additional

procedural safeguards might impose). (See the box “Public Administration in History: The

Spotted Owl and Agency Interpretation of the Law.”) As a result, it has become much more difficult for someone who feels that adequate protections have not been provided to prevail

in the courts (Cooper, 2000).

The flexibility in administrative law for due process has contributed to a variety of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies, namely, mediation and arbitration. The

adoption of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 helped remove many of the

barriers administrators face to such alternative approaches. For the most part, ADR

strategies are easier to employ in less complex cases. Yet ADR should not be used to obtain settlements that fail to protect the public interest. The spirit and letter of the agreement must

be clear or else face considerable challenge, and potential failure, during the implementation

stage.

The Courts and Agency Administration

Over the last twenty years, one of the most dramatic developments in the relationship

between administrative agencies and the judiciary is the direct involvement of federal

district courts (and some state courts) in agency administration, including decisions on spending, personnel, organization, and management. This involvement has come about

through court rulings in administrative equity cases, wherein individual rights, such as the

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, have been violated by state and local

administrative organizations.

Two landmark cases in the early 1970s set precedents for such rulings. In the first, prisoners

in the Arkansas penitentiary system alleged a large number of abuses, including dangerous

and unhealthy conditions in the prisons. The cou rt ruled that confinement in the Arkansas

system amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and ordered corrections officials to devise a plan to remedy the problems. Similarly, in Alabama a federal district court judge

found “intolerable and deplorable” conditions in that state's largest mental health facility

and ordered corrective actions. The court also established a constitutional right to treatment,

detailing actions required to meet that constitutional standard (Gilmour, 1982, pp. 26 –29).

Public Administration in History

THE SPOTTED OWL AND AGENCY INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute it administers, it is confronted

with two questions.

First, always, is the question of whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well

as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question

at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent

or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the

agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Given the ubiquity of ambiguity in regulatory statutes, Chevron looked like a recipe for

judicial acquiescence to agency interpretations. It hasn't worked out that way.

Sometimes, to be sure, the Court gives full scope to the doctrine announced in Chevron. Other

times, however, the Court virtually ignores the Chevron test. Most importantly, only three

years after Chevron, the Court opened up further opportunities for exceptions to the doctrine

of deference to agency interpretation.

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon—the celebrated Spotted

Owl case—illustrates the indeterminacy of the Chevron doctrine. At issue was the meaning of the term harm in the Endangered Species Act. The act prohibits the “taking” of endangered

animals and defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect.” According to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, “harm” includes destruction of habitat that has the effect—although not the purpose—of harming

endangered wildlife. Oregon business interests challenged this interpretation as contrary to

the statute.

The fundamental problem in administrative law is that a congressional majority typically favors some federal response to a problem, but no congressional majority favors any

particular response. Rather than do nothing, Congress adopts general language and leaves it

to the agencies—and the courts—to make the controversial choices. The Endangered

Species Act is a good illustration of this. Congress knew quite well that habitat destruction

poses the biggest threat to endangered species. Congress also knew, however, that regulating

habitat destruction would conflict with economic development. So Congress waffled.

The only clear intention Congress had regarding habitat destruction is a clear intention to

have no clear intention. The problem calls less for lawyerly interpretations of authoritative language than for a policy decision made by an institution that is familiar with the problem

and is held politically accountable. The agency has the advantage (over) the courts on both

counts.

SOURCE: Donald A. Dripps, Trial 32, no. 2 (February 1996): 70–71. Reprinted with

permission of the author.

The involvement of courts in the management of public agencies is especially well illustrated

in a federal judge's order demanding reform of the New Orleans Parish Prison. In addition to

ordering adequate medical services, improved security, and development of recreational

facilities, the judge directed that “the management and operation of the prison be improved immediately,” that a professional penologist be hired to manage the prison, and that

personnel practices (filling vacancies, raising wages, etc.) be improved in specific ways.

Although court actions such as this have obviously corrected constitutional inequities, there are questions as to whether the courts are well suited for involvement in the details of

administration. Moreover, many states and localities argue that court-ordered expenditures

of funds on projects such as desegregation or prison reform take money away from other

needed services, such as education, social welfare, or mental health. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has taken steps to limit the involvement of courts in the work of

administrative agencies, requiring carefully tailored plans of limited duration based on

specific constitutional violations.

Summary and Action Implications This chapter has explored the political context of public administration, including things you

will simply need to know to operate effectively in or with public or nonprofit organizations.

The material in this chapter (and in Chapters 3 and 4) constitutes a knowledge base on which

to build your action skills. Understanding the political context of work in the public sector will enhance the effectiveness of your actions.

Public managers, and their counterparts in nonprofit organizations, work in many different

institutional settings, but those institutions all reflect important political values that lie at the heart of a democratic system. Whether at the federal, state, or local level, in the

governmental or nongovernmental sector, a democracy's values, especially a concern for

operating in the public interest, affect the structure of public and nonprofit organizations.

For example, the division of powers at the federal level expresses a fear of concentrated power; similarly, the council-manager plan expresses one way to view the relationship

between politics and administration. Finally, the structure of nonprofit organizations reflects

their operation in the public interest. Knowing something about how democratic values are

reflected in the structure of the various organizations and knowing something about the role of executive leadership in administrative organizations will enable you to act with greater

confidence and authority.

As a manager or analyst, you may have important interactions with a legislative body, either

the national Congress, a state legislature, a local city council, or a nonprofit organization's

board of directors. Those serving in the public interest participate in one way or another in

nearly all policy areas—a situation that our political system encourages. The distinction

Woodrow Wilson suggested between politics (or policy) and administration no longer

accurately describes the relationship between the legislative and the executive branches. Today, the legislature and the various agencies of government share in the policy process,

either working together in developing policy or making separate decisions in different

realms.

As a manager or analyst, you will also deal with the legislature in many other ways. Most importantly, the legislature will establish the tasks your agency or association will undertake

and provide human and financial resources to carry them out. Moreover, the legislative body

will exercise continuing, although sometimes intermittent, supervision over your work.

Thus, you may spend a great deal of time developing effective working relationships with those in the legislature.

The involvement of the courts in the work of administration is both intense and inevitable.

For this reason, your understanding of the legal system and your ability to interact with legal and judicial officials will improve your effectiveness as a public manager. Whether you are

dealing with the legislative body or the courts, your relationship with either need not be

adversarial. Indeed, in many cases, the legislature and the courts can help to substantially

improve administrative practices.

By now you should be coming to realize that your behavior as a public or nonprofit manager

is bounded by a vast and complicated network of relationships in which you are but one of

many players. Within this network, you must be attentive to questions of executive

leadership, legislative intent and oversight, and judicial interpretation. The world of the public administrator is indeed complex!

STUDY QUESTIONS 10. What do we mean by the term public policies? 11. Describe how the president's role in the administration of government has changed

since the framing of the Constitution.

12. Describe the administrative system at the federal level.

13. State and local governments have been designed to operate similarly to the national

level; however, both have distinct structures for administering government

initiatives. Explain each level's structure and the different approaches to operating

the government bureaucracy. 14. Describe the policy process and the actors who play significant roles in shaping

administrative issues.

15. What are the four types of policy? Define and give examples.

16. How do agencies maintain a power base within the government? 17. Describe some of the structural controls on bureaucratic power and how government,

as a whole, benefits from these controls.

18. Discuss several ways the legislative and judicial branches interact with the

bureaucracy. Explain why these interventions are necessary and useful.

CASES AND EXERCISES 19. We have discussed the various powers, both formal and informal, that affect the

governor's ability to exercise executive power in the administration of state

government. Among the informal powers that governors exercise are political powers

(including agenda setting), budgetary powers, and executive leadership.

20. Among the formal powers are the presence or absence of an item veto and the ability

of the governor to reorganize state agencies. Another indicator of gubernatorial

power is the number of other elected statewide officials. Analyze the power of the

governor in your state, giving special attention to the governor's power to exercise executive leadership over the agencies of state government. How do your governor's

executive powers compare to those of the president of the United States? How do they

compare to those of your local mayor?

21. Attend a meeting of a congressional or state legislative committee, your local city council, or the board of directors of a local nonprofit organization. Watch the pattern

of interaction between elected members of the legislative body and full-time

administrators. (The latter may be agency staff called to testify, legislative support staff, a city manager or executive director, or many others.) What strengths does each

side bring to the exchange? What is the level of cooperation or competition? If

possible, try to follow up with the administrator to see how he or she felt about the

interchange. To what extent did the legislative body set a clear direction for the administrator's ensuing actions? What discretion did the administrator have (or

claim to have) following the meeting?

22. Consider the following case: Billie Jackson was the leader of a nonprofit, economic

development corporation in a small community in Colorado. For six years, Billie had been trying to interest members of the city council in purchasing an abandoned

downtown hotel for conversion to a city-owned long-term care facility. Billie felt

strongly that the community needed such a facility and that the city had a golden opportunity to meet that need through purchase of the hotel. The problem was that

several extremely conservative members of the council felt differently. In their view,

the city shouldn't get into providing social services, especially where the need might

be met by a private firm at some point in the future. Moreover, they felt the cost of the purchase and renovations would be more than the community could bear.

23. The hotel issue was once again on the council agenda, and Billie was determined to

make the strongest appeal possible. With the help of a nearby university, she had

prepared a lengthy report documenting the need for the facility and the desirability of purchasing the hotel. Just as she was beginning her presentation, one of the

conservative council members said, “Mrs. Jackson, we have heard more on this topic

than we care to. I just don't want to go through all this again. I move to table the issue

indefinitely.” The motion to table carried by a quick and somewhat confused voice

vote.

24. Assume the role of Billie Jackson. What is your immediate response? What would you

do in the days and weeks that followed? Would you continue to pursue the issue? Why or why not?

FOR ADDITIONAL READING