Exceptional proff only 2

Evidence in Public Administration Editors’ Introduction 221

Evidence in Public Administration

Rhonda Riherd Trautman received

her PhD in public administration from the

University of Kentucky’s Martin School of

Public Policy in 1991. From 1994 to 1999,

she served as assistant director at the

University of Arizona’s School of Public

Administration and Policy. From 2000 to

2015, she worked in local government,

serving as a city council member and then

as elected mayor in 2011. She currently

serves as a consultant to the Martin School

of Public Policy and to local government

and nonprofi t organizations.

E-mail: [email protected]

theoretically surmountable if anticipated and properly managed.

As a student at the Martin School of Public Policy at the University of Kentucky in 1986, I believed that if done properly, good policy—no matter the environment—would win out over the alternative.

Abstract: Small-town local governments face unique challenges when it comes to policy making. Th is essay reviews some of those barriers and considers why they occur and why they are unique to small towns. In addition, it includes some examples of how to overcome these challenges from the perspective of a former mayor, local legislator, and member of the academic community. Th e essay also explores why traditional theories of public policy implementation often fail to describe policy making at the local level because of the unique environment that exists in small-town governments.

Small-Town Policy Makers

Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary VanLandingham, Editors

Rhonda Riherd Trautman

Every master of public administration (MPA) program across the county teaches policy development and implementation, introduc- ing students to models of traditional “top-down” or “bottom-up” ways of thinking that are applicable, in theory, to all levels of government. According to countless models, barriers to success are taught to be

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 2, pp. 221–224. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12526.

222 Public Administration Review • March | April 2016

Some recognized strategies are listed here. Although somewhat simplistic, these steps seemed achievable and realistic.

• Build consensus • Plan properly • Rally resources • Instill leadership • Communicate eff ectively

Upon receiving my PhD, I taught MPA students for many years with the same eagerness I had as a student. I shared the theoretical views and models I had been taught to prepare students to move into public sector careers, knowing they would leave with the proper tools to navigate the policy implementation quagmire for the good of all.

Following a unique path, my career focus soon shifted to local gov- ernment. I was hired by my hometown mayor to serve as the city’s development director. I was eager to use my background as a way to positively impact my hometown. After two years, a new mayor was elected, and much of the progressive thinking came to a halt; federal mandates were being ignored, and creative policy initiatives ceased. Feeling frustrated, I decided to jump into the policy maker role and run for city council. After two years on the council, I was elected mayor.

In my various roles in small-town government, I have witnessed suc- cesses and failures. More importantly, as a practitioner, my under- standing of how things really work has changed. As a result, and now wearing my old hat of teacher again, my experience tells me practice and theory are not consistent, and the process rarely follows textbook models. Further, I strongly sense we are doing students a disservice by not including more practical aspects of policy imple- mentation in the classroom. Th is is especially true for those students moving into positions in local government, where, I believe, unique barriers exist.

Here, I share some of my observations and experiences as mayor, council member, and department head in a small town. I include obstacles that impact policy makers at the local level and have an eff ect on the outcome of their decision making.

Proximity Th e literature outlines many traditional obstacles impeding success- ful policy implementation. At the local level, one barrier studied is referred to as “local politics.” It is a vague, catchall term that is used to describe the self-interest of elected offi cials, backdoor deals, and “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours” often blamed for lack of good policy. But in practice, I believe what we witness at the local level goes well beyond local politics.

Local government policy making, like all levels of government, should not occur in a vacuum and outside the view of the public— the process should be transparent. Th ere must be a willingness to discuss issues in full view of the public, and the process should, in theory, always keep the best interests of the community in mind. Transparency requires legislative bodies to conduct government business in the open and allow for public discussion. Whether discussing the annual budget, state or federal mandates, or other

policy matters, open discussion is a vital part of the process. Local policy makers must demonstrate a willingness to listen, be open to input, and more importantly, consider the community feedback in the decision-making process.

Traditional ways to solicit input include public hearings and open discussion of issues during regular meetings. At all levels of govern- ment, when an issue is controversial, more often than not, those attending the meetings and speaking out represent extreme views on the issue being discussed. It seems the typical middle-of-the-road citizen rarely attends these meetings. As a result, those more moder- ate views are not usually represented in the public debate.

In addition, in the case of small-town government, policy makers are not seeking input from or discussing policy issues in front of a faceless public. On the contrary, the public in small towns is made up of policy makers’ neighbors, coworkers, family members, and others they see daily—on the street, at church, at ballgames, at the grocery, and so on. Citizens who speak out on policy issues, either for or against, universally have personal ties to the policy makers who ultimately make the decisions. As a result, policy makers can- not avoid these opinions, knowing they will run into these citizens in all parts of their daily lives.

As a result, it seems that at the local level, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Often, members of the policy-making body elected to do what is in the best interest of the community have diffi culty resist- ing the pressure to cave to the narrow interests of the outspoken citizens. Proximity does indeed aff ect the outcome. In these cases, the outcome leads to local policies refl ecting the views of the vocal citizen, the one who speaks out the loudest in public, not necessarily representing the majority view. Doing the right thing for the com- munity as a whole often takes a backseat to doing nothing, or doing whatever it takes to silence the vocal citizens.

In contrast, large metropolitan city, state, and federal level policy makers operate with distance between themselves and the public. State legislators and certainly members of Congress do not interact daily with those impacted by policy decisions. Th ey most likely do not personally know a large majority of their constituents. Alternatively, in small towns, it is often the case that everyone does know everyone—a proximity that does not exist at other levels of government. Th e outcome is that small-town “proximity” can and often does impact, impede, or alter policy decisions.

To complicate matters, in small towns, elected offi cials, including council members, commissioners, and magistrates, are often part- time positions. Th e elected offi cials are business men and women, lawyers, schoolteachers, and ministers, and they represent promi- nent positions within the community. Decision making is often based on the best interest of elected offi cials who do not want to lose a customer, off end a parent or teacher of their child’s, or upset members of their congregation. A business boycott or negative press can impact the policy maker’s livelihood. As a result, proximity to the policy maker aff ects the outcome.

Th e outcome of these dynamics is why so much of what is accom- plished at the local level is done by way of backdoor deals, closed meetings (often outside the legal requirements of open meeting

Small-Town Policy Makers 223

information, and misinterpreted data. Th e truth is that gossip goes a long way in small towns. Once the tainted information is out there, it seems no matter what steps public offi cials take to discount it and set the record straight, the misleading information is often impossi- ble to overcome. Th e benefi ts of a good policy decision can, in fact, be completely annulled and negated by one disagreeing person on social media.

In addition, 24-hour access to public offi cials by way of e-mail, text, and cell phones give many citizens a regular avenue to comment, complain, and critique offi cials. As an administrative tool, these technologies make running government much easier. However, with this unlimited access, it seems the public expects elected offi cials to be at their beck and call anytime, no matter the circumstances. Th is leads to policy maker fatigue. It also leads elected offi cials to pull back from controversies, debate, and issues that might lead to unwanted interaction with citizens that intrudes on their daily lives, their families, and their businesses.

But… Despite the barriers I have described, it is not all gloom and doom at the local level. Much of the innovation in public policy begins at the local level. Small-town innovative initiatives typically arise out of a perceived or observed need within the community. Th e needs are often identifi ed by an individual or small group of citizens, slowly developing broad-based support. Small-town local governments all across the country have many examples of innovation and policy successes, including innovative recycling programs, community renewable and sustainable energy initiatives, local food networks and slow food networks, aff ordable housing plans, and environmen- tal management.

How does this happen given the barriers I have described? Reverting to the public policy theory, the fact is that top-down strategies are not successful in small towns. Citizens do not want policy makers who are their neighbors, coworkers, fellow church members, and so on telling them they know what is best for them. Given the proxim- ity and other issues I have described, someone will rise up, speak out, and distract from the issue. To avoid this, successful eff orts at the local level require leadership and the development of a creative network of individuals, organizations, and local government work- ing together and using formal and informal networks and bottom- up strategies to achieve new policies and initiatives. Citizen input is needed and policy makers must fi nd ways to solicit feedback from more than the extreme views within the community. By building a strong community base, it is possible to silence the noise and the naysayers and to provide policy makers with a fi rm platform on which to take a stand.

Potential Solutions To address these issues, students of public policy should be intro- duced to techniques, strategies, and tools to reduce or eliminate these barriers. Public administration and policy programs should go beyond the traditional content and include topics such as consensus building and mediation to develop skills for more eff ective interac- tion with the public. In addition, topics such as public relations, marketing, and communication are talents critical to successful policy implementation and building mutually benefi cial relation- ships between government organizations and the public. Students

laws), and other strategies to avoid public scrutiny—that is, local politics. Th ose with the best interest of the community in mind often are not willing to take a stand publicly, but they will take a stand outside the public eyes and ears.

Apathy In direct contrast to the previous point, another obstacle facing local policy makers is citizen apathy. In some cases, no matter how much government offi cials reach out to the public, it is often a struggle to get the message out about the potential impact of a policy on the local community. Th is obstacle comes down to the cost of information. With tight budgets and limited resources, there is, in reality, only so much small towns can reasonably do to educate citizens. News releases, newsletters, websites, and local media are traditional means. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer citizens rely on local media for their news. Th is is compounded by the fact that each year there are fewer locally produced news outlets. Outside of news media, the eff ec- tiveness of the other strategies is questionable. As described earlier, the average citizen is not compelled to attend public meetings and hearings, in part because of indiff erence, lack of time, or information. Newsletters are thrown in the trash, and media stories go unread. Sadly, in many cases, even with a good public marketing plan, impor- tant local policy issues are completely ignored by the public.

Time after time, I have witnessed important issues, including trans- portation plans, downtown redevelopment, planning and zoning, budget hearings, and other serious community issues, go forward without any participation by citizens, no matter how well publi- cized. Public hearings are vacant and pleas for public comment go unfulfi lled. Only when those “nonparticipating” or “uninformed” citizens realize that the issue has real and apparent impacts on them as individuals will an opinion surface after the fact. Th e outcry typically blames local offi cials for implementing the policy without public comment and sneaking something past the voters—in spite of the eff orts to reach out to the public. For public offi cials, it is sometimes a no-win situation.

Technology More than 35 years ago, Richard Elmore (1979–80) stated that pol- icy “implementation is long on description and short on prescrip- tion” and provides limited, vague, and unfocused advice to policy makers and practitioners. Fast-forward to 2016—we fi nd ourselves facing some of the same issues Elmore and others have studied, along with new barriers and obstacles not previously considered. When Elmore made this statement, the idea of social media was as foreign an idea as the cell phone. Based on my experience, these technology developments have made public policy implementation at the local level even more challenging.

For example, successful public policy implementation requires local governments to inform the public. Given the limitations of public meetings, newsletters, and the media, new technology such as social media provides an innovative and inexpensive means of reaching out to the public. Given the popularity, social media such as Facebook and Twitter can be an eff ective means for local governments to get information out to the public. Th e result is a better-informed public.

Alternatively, social media can be used negatively as well. Naysayers can throw out exaggerated views, personal attacks, blatantly wrong

224 Public Administration Review • March | April 2016

particularly useful skills for administrators in small towns, they are applicable for success at all levels of public administration.

Reference Elmore, Richard. 1979–80. Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and

Policy Decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94(4): 601–16.

need to understand how to anticipate, analyze, and interpret public opinion, attitudes, and issues that might negatively or positively impact the outcome of the policy decision. Using these strategies, students of public policy will be better prepared to manage the barriers described here and to maximize strategies to develop an “informed public.” While I have outlined these strategic areas as

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.