Policy Making in the Public Interest

A Text and Workbook for Local Government

Michael L. Abels

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351661737
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Policy Making in the Public Interest is the first text and workbook to provide a short and firmly focused introduction to local government policy making techniques. Each chapter introduces core policy concepts and competencies and concludes with exercises that encourage the reader to apply the theme of the chapter to a practical policy issue in local government, such as city-planning, community-economic development, public safety programming, utility planning, developing regional partnerships, and sustainable growth and development.

The exercises explore issues students are likely to analyze as interns or observe in a service learning assignment with local government. For practitioners and elected officials, the exercises focus on issues commonly confronted on the job. This unique approach is designed specifically to lead the reader to a complete and multi-dimensional understanding of 'the public interest' and to provide tools for identifying and adopting local government policies that will support it. An accompanying eResource page contains grading forms to evaluate verbal presentations and analytical work, PowerPoint slides, downloadable forms for students and practitioners, as well as links and resources. Policy Making in the Public Interest is an essential text and workbook for classes in public policy or local government operations, a vital self-guided handbook for managers and elected officials, and a useful resource and instructional guide for workshops.

Part I
Public Interest and Trends for the Future

1 Serving the Public Interest

Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.

William Jennings Bryan

The foundation purpose for local government is the setting of public policy that addresses community needs, aspirations, values, and unmet opportunities that will advance the quality of life for members of the community. All that local government accomplishes begins by the enactment of public policy, and then public officials putting systems in place to implement policy which fulfills the unrealized needs of the public, values held by the public that are not being fulfilled through programs or services, hopes for the future that are held by the public, and/or opportunities for improvement that can be made in the community. Through policy enactment, authorization and funding, programs, services, or laws are implemented to address these identified needs, aspirations, values, or opportunities.

In its orientation to practitioners, this workbook is directed to two different actors in the policy-making process: managers and elected officials. As either a manager or elected official, you have separate, yet very interlocked roles in policy formulation.

The second focus for this workbook is toward students studying the theory and process of public policy. Throughout the book the student reader will be placed in the role of an organizational policy analyst. Students are asked to review the administrative and planning processes essential to policy formation, and/or to complete an analysis for a policy issue confronting the organization to which they are assigned.

In the Beginning

In the early part of the twentieth century, when the field of public administration was in its formation stages, Woodrow Wilson, recognized by many as a father of American public administration, described the policy process through a system characterized as the political-administrative dichotomy.¹ One version of this dichotomy calls for elected officials to make policy with appointed officials functioning only to carry out the policies enacted through their legislative body. Under this concept, the manager’s sole role in policy is to carry out what elected officials design. Managers are not to initiate policy consideration or advocate with elected officials about perceived policy needs. This pure version of the dichotomy, while still described in some academic textbooks, was relatively short lived in theory. It was quickly understood that the manager’s role was much more than one of only serving as a simple functionary, a functionary whose sole purpose was to make the bureaucracy function. I should say in most people’s minds it was short lived but, as will be pointed out, one current political philosophy holds that managers should not propose policy concepts, but instead just carry out to the letter the policy initiatives enacted by the legislative body.

Managers assuming a limited policy role are supported by rising populist distrust of decisions made by anyone that serves in an organizational role. The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States underscored the growing alienation citizens feel with “experts,” as well as officials who serve in any formal capacity. This alienation is mirrored in many of our local elected officials who are elevated to office solely because they are identified as antagonists to the formal power structure. Because of this built-in conflict, managers and elected officials must carefully negotiate, and identify the boundaries of their individual, as well as their mutual role and relationship.

To mitigate populist distrust at the local level of government, it is essential that managers and elected officials deeply engage citizens throughout the policy process. Citizen engagement will be highlighted, and need reinforced, throughout subsequent chapters.

Even with a rising populist discontent, the idea of strictly curtailing managerial involvement in policy identification remains a minority viewpoint. Most theoretical constructs describing the interaction between elected and appointed officials see managers as leaders in identifying community needs, values, hopes, and opportunities. They then, based upon what the manager empirically understands, submit recommendations to the elected officials about alternatives that may be considered to address those four areas.

Professional Associations, Ethical Principles, and the Public Interest

As an elected or appointed official, you are most likely a member of a professional organization that represents the interests of cities, counties, or, managers. It is also hoped that, if you are a student, you are also a member of a professional organization that represents your future profession. The organizations representing cities and counties each have core values, or key beliefs, that are oriented to the collective or public interest.

The National League of Cities (NLC) highlights a core belief that, while it does not contain the words public interest, it does guide elected officials to “anticipate the needs of communities and develop strategies to meet those needs and improve the quality of life” (National League of Cities 2015).

The county-level counterpart to the NLC is the National Association of Counties (NACo). NACo’s vision is strongly oriented to the concept of community sustainability, and therefore the public interest. Its vision is to assist citizens achieve a better quality of life, and it recognizes the interdependence of communities and calls for collaboration to meet joint needs. The vision advocated by NACo addresses all three elements of community sustainability: social, economic, and environmental (National Association of Counties 2015).

Associations representing the broad profession of public administration, as well as city and county managers, are much more specific on how the public interest should serve as a guide star during the policy process.

This role is embedded within the code of ethics for two professional associations that encompass public administration in general, as well as city/county government specifically. They are the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) which encompasses the broad field of public administration and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) which represents managers working for units of local government. Both professional associations have a code of ethics that is centered on the public interest.

ASPA directly addresses the responsibility of public administrators to focus on leading for the public interest through two of its ethical codes. First, in the first tenet of its code of ethics, ASPA informs public administrators that they should “advance the public interest” and, second, a role of administration is to “strengthen social equity,” which according to the ASPA definition means the reduction of inequality (American Society for Public Administration 2012). ASPA’s code of ethics is reinforced by the second goal in ASPA’s strategic plan, which is to bring together organizations and individuals to advance the public service and public interest. Objective 1 for this goal is to rebuild a coalition of those committed to the public good (American Society for Public Administration 2014). The action words of “advancing,” “rebuilding,” require a future-oriented, leadership mindset.

ICMA represents managers serving cities and counties. The ICMA code of ethics does not use the exact words public interest, but it does address the concept of the public interest through tenet 4 of the ICMA code. This ethical tenet advocates for city/county managers to “recognize the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interest of all people” (International City/County Managment Association 2015).

Tenet 5 of the ICMA code of ethics, which advocates for managers to provide facts as well as advice to elected officials on matters of policy, assumes managers will play a proactive policy role, one best characterized as a trustee or public steward (Roman 2015) of the public interest. A core belief championed by ICMA in the association’s strategic plan is support for the ICMA code of ethics as a guiding value for members of ICMA (International City/County Mangement Association 2017). However, tenet 5’s statement about providing advice about policy is not always hardily endorsed by elected officials, or for that matter by some managers. Because of this ambiguous support, some managers and many elected officials assume a policy role labeled as that of a delegate. It is to these divergent policy approaches that we now turn.²

Trustee of the Public Interest versus Delegate of Special or Group Interests

This text-workbook is based on the premise that policy should be focused on the accomplishment of the public interest. When elected representatives base their policy decisions on what they perceive to be the larger public interest, then they as individuals, and together serving as a collective body, are viewed as “trustees.” Trustees pursue the public interest by analyzing all possible information surrounding an issue to include consideration of the immediate will of their constituents, and then they take a policy position based on what they believe will be in the current, as well as future, best interest of the collective public (Rehfeld 2009). The theory of trusteeship is centered around the principle of representative democracy. If the ultimate outcomes of the policies voted by the representative do not reflect the public interest, as viewed by those who are represented, then they can vote that person out of office, replacing with one that is perceived to be more aligned with the values, preferences, and desires of the electorate.

A strong argument for elected officials serving as trustees is made by Larry Arrington in The Cosmopolitan Uprising: Rebuilding Civitas for a New America. As he points out, to encourage elected officials to serve as trustees, citizens must work in common cause for the common good. Arrington explains that our institutions cannot design programs and policies to meet the needs, aspirations, and values of our citizens unless citizens are willing to partially sacrifice their own purely selfish material interests in favor of the common good (Arrington 2017).

Viewing this argument through a historical lens, the founders of our republican form of government, a representative democracy, believed that for representative democracy to work elected officials must assume the role of a trustee. Founder James Madison, writing number 10 of The Federalist Papers, argued that citizens’ demands based on individual passion can work against community interests. Therefore, the role of the elected official is to look at the broad scope of community interests, refine, and enlarge the narrow individual interests, and then create public policy that reflects this broader public interest. Madison believed that a representative form of government would better insure that the interest of the whole would not be sacrificed to “temporary or partial considerations” (Dawson 1868). In essence, Madison was calling for elected representatives to serve as public trustees. Those who serve as trustees will be noted by the following:

Public Trustees

• View issues through input from constituents, independent research, and expert opinion, collecting and analyzing data.

• Survey entire community, voting and non-voting, to identify comprehensive community opinion and positions.

• Look at long-term trends and needs and ultimately use their own independent judgment by weighing all the factors which impact the decision. Decision may go opposite of what is thought to be the majority position held by their constituency.

• Assume that ultimate decision about wisdom of policy position will be decided by voters through election. Voters will decide the collective merit of the positions taken by the elected representative and then decide whether to maintain them in office or replace with them a person they think better reflects their interests as well as the interests of the community.

• Manager makes recommendations on policy using a process of rational analysis, weighing citizen position as only one criterion in their final decision.

On the other hand, if representatives vote in close accordance with the demands of a constituency they are considered “delegates” of the people, and not trustees of the public interest.

Delegate

• Positions reflect what is perceived to be the majority opinion of constituency. Expert opinion and data from research are only important from the perspective of how they mirror and influence popular opinion. At the local level this is often interprete...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Part I Public Interest and Trends for the Future
• Part II Identifying the Community Public Interest
• Part III Tools for Policy Analysis
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D
• Index