IntroductionAuthor(s): Christine GibbsSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1994), pp. 105-107Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976515 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 03:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IenA Reinventing Government: A Minb~orum __

TOPS: Those Other Publications Reviewing the Winter Commission Report

Introduction Christine Gibbs

The Line in Winter: An Academic Assessment of the First Report of the National Commission on the State and Local Public Service

Richard C. Elling The Winter Commission Report: The Practitioner's Perspective

Raymond W Cox III Public Affairs, Administrative Faculty, and the Winter Commission Report

Delmer D. Dunn

Commentary: The "Reinventing Government" Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences

Ronald C. Moe

Book Review Essay Administrative Reform-American Style

Gerald S. Caiden

Intoducion Christine Gibbs, Red Tape Limited

55rThile much of what is presented WXI these days as governmental

V reform is neither new nor pro- found, a proliferation of books and arti- cles over the last two years dealing with "reinvention" challenges all of us as public administrators to look ourselves and our mirror images straight in the eye and con- front change.

No one can dispute that things are changing. Some would question how long lasting and substantive the changes will prove to be. I, for one, doubt that one report, commission, book, or process will be responsible for that change as it manifests itself in government. Like most new "inventions" throughout history, whatever works will be more a function of repetitive testing and commitment to finding a better way of doing things than it will be a function of timing or luck.

Speaking of timing and luck, although the reform package submitted on state and local reform by the Winter Commission suffered for both upon its release in juxtaposition to the National Performance Review, it warrants careful if not equal attention. Most of its recom- mendations are well grounded. All are revolutionary if only because they are thoughtful and promote change in gov- ernment. May we remember however, as Lincoln Steffens said in 1903, "revolt is not reform and one revolutionary admin- istration is not good government."1

Every proposal for changing govern- ment operation and authority must now be evaluated anew even as some may rep- resent ideas that have come forward before and fallen short. Today those ideas fall upon fertile ground. Change is some- thing that enshrouds each of us daily and, more to the point, it has become our expectation for government. The cher- ished status quo is changing. Two years ago, 51 percent of those surveyed in an additional poll believed fundamental changes were needed in the system of gov-

ernment and politics, while an additional 34 percent said the political system should be completely rebuilt. Today, we all con- front the products of that frustration in many mirror images, some friendly and others less so. As an example, all but seven states have conducted statewide reviews of governmental effectiveness dur- ing the last five years with most imple- menting some kind of structural modifi- cation, often in budgeting, personnel, and planning. Every endeavor conduded that some aspect of the basic operation of gov- ernment warranted change.

What role do we as managers and educators choose to play in the changes afoot? Will it be one of ensuring that a forum is provided for all of those affected when collective decisions are being made, one of leading the community in terms of public policy choices, or one of simply carrying out orders and delivering the ser- vice efficiently?

Will we reject any modification out- right, prepare for it by creating an envi- ronment where new ideas are considered, or participate in the reform debate and development?

As a westerner, government reform is as firmly ingrained in me and as is the tra- dition of active engagement. I commend it to you. While the perception may be that the West was beaten out of rock by rugged individualists, in reality, westerners always did and still do depend more on government than most other Americans. From the earliest days, we knew we need- ed Uncle Sam to water the desert and to subdivide the land, but we wanted to write our own rules on how that should be done. I submit that this represents how most Americans currently feel about governmental institutions and that, in fact, much of the Populist revolt at the turn of the century had ties to the West, thus making Ross Perot less of a phe- nomenon than one might think. All the while we continually hurl hostile rhetoric

Public Administration Review . March/April 1994, Vol. 54, No. 2 105

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and stage 'sagebrush rebellions," in the end, not only do we note that institutions of govern- ment have endured but that we have come to depend upon them. We are never shy about getting government involved. The pioneers were adept at forming special districts in the early federal territories. Today, mayors are forming them to attract sports franchises. Through cooperation, we survived as did gov- crnmcnt. It produced and still produces by most definitions, the highest living standards, safest neighborhoods, best education across the board, and the cleanest environment. All this needs to be said and is a result of an under- standably imperfect and not to be trusted but functioning government.

That is why I can accept the political nature of many of the recommendations for reforming government with greater grace than I can accept a call for governments to "trust and lead." James Kilpatrick described the point well when commenting on President Carter's proposed governmental reforms in 1978. He said, "reform is like garlic in salad. A little goes a long way."

After all, reforming government is in its very essence political and appropriately so. To modify operations without addressing effective governance is to miss the point.2 In fact, it seems to me that many reform proposals fall short because they only deal with one or the other aspect but not both. To talk about elimi- nating overlapping elected officers or strength- ening executive officers may sound reasonable but in what context? It seems to me that such proposals are inconsistent with everything we know about how the American system of gov- ernment was meant to operate. This is not to say that the notion is not popular. It is tempt- ing for the American voter to believe that it is actually possible in our complex world to make one individual or office totally responsible for every action. Certainly, recent discussions in cities like Dallas about going from a city man- ager to the strong mayor form of government demonstrates that. However, if the fundamen- tal assumption behind such a movement is that the officials we elect can be trusted to do the right thing, think again. Some other motiva- tion like flattening the organization or accumu- lating political power may be more responsible.

I am convinced that both we and the American voter recognize that there are no sim- ple answers. Just as most winners of the All- American Cities competition during the past two years have been council-manager commu- nities, so too the top three of Financial World's best-managed communities were council-man- ager cities. Movements behind state and local as well as some national reforms have less to do with governmental responsiveness and more to do with individuals or disenfranchised commu-

nities wanting greater control over the decisions that affect them.

Reform proposals that make the most sense to me are those that call for greater account- ability and openness in all that government does. Once some semblance of accountability and openness can be fiLirly consistently demon- strated, then trust may follow. Accountability means addressing the unfunded mandate issue (not simply in terms of Medicaid or health care reform but in terms of education, housing, and agriculture)as much as it means campaign finance reform and open public meetings. It means accepting that there are limits to what government can accomplish and setting out those limits before the voters and elected offi- cials. It increasingly means performance and outcome measures as much as it means term and spending limits. It may eventually mean transferring functions to the level and unit of government that demonstrates through a com- petitive bidding process that it can.best per- form specified objectives.

Openness means not only encouraging citi- zen consultation but also recognizing that gov- ernmental decisions made in one community affect neighboring communities and induding all of the affected interests in the decision circle. If the way in which NPR and the Winter reform proposals took shape is any indication of a trend toward inclusion through broader participation in the final recommendations, then some progress is being made. However, if reformers suggest that it is enough to simply improve the performance of one unit of gov- ernment without rethinking and reinvesting in more effective partnership both among govern- ments and between governments and the pri- vate and nonprofit sectors, then the spirit if not the substance of their proposals are compro- mised in terms of overall improved perfor- mance and the effect of the reform measure will fall short.

While civil service, employee training, labor-management communication reforms and the prospect of governmental agencies becoming learning organizations may be the most intriguing of reform proposals to public administrators, they may also never materialize due to lack of sustained enthusiasm on behalf of lawmakers. That is why progress in these and numerous important, but mundane mat- ters, of how the system works over time will be left to public administrators. It would be easy to leave implementation to chance or to some- one else, but we know better. It would also be tempting to cite barriers to overcoming a poor public image of the public service as the reason that nothing will get done.

The degree to which public servants become leaders will, in large part, be a question of how comfortable they feel leading. That, in

my opinion, will depend upon both their edu- cational preparation and their first experience with a governmental agency. The first requires new competencies to be taught by an educa- tional system that appears to increasingly spe- cialize in highly technical fields without paying much attention to instilling the values and thought processes required of and indicative to leaders. The second requires public managers to exert leadership now on the job where and when they can. I tend to agree, as an example, with Mark Abramson, President of the Council for Excellence, in his assertion that how gov- ernment is organized and how employees treat their customers can not only be improved by individual managers making administrative decisions, but that to do so more directly affects what the public at large thinks of gov- ernment than any other single activity. In other words, by improving such things as cus- tomer service or employee training in one agen- cy, a small step is taken toward improving not only the public's perception of government and public employees so critical to the long-term recruitment of quality people to government but toward creating the very problem-solving environment that workers find attractive and that reform proposals talk about.

It is always difficult to create a positive work environment when there are recurring budget crises or to improve services in conjunc- tion with restructuring proposals that eliminate the very positions that provide service. Yet, time and time again, the attempt is being made. From California's offering program- funding incentives for performance (50 percent of the savings may be reinvested), to a grass roots Association of Quality and Participation that supports agency-based approaches in Washington, to the Texas Child Care Management Services creation of one-stop shop for child-care services under eight federal programs servicing more than 20 client groups, to the Glasgow Electric Plant's Board in Kentucky making distance learning possible between homes and schools through the cre- ation of a multiservice information system, things are changing. Without participation by public administrators, restructuring will con- tinue to occur as personnel and other policies are directly taken from the private sector along with all the flaws (diminating jobs but failing to change basic functions), or will be devised by new careerists in response to conceptual approaches recommended by journalists with no real stake in the outcome and with little first-hand understanding of either the politics or the practice of government. The choice is ours. May we actively engage the process of change. As Tip O'Neill said upon leaving Congress: "What am I proudest ofR That I have seen America change and that I have played a part."

106 Public Administration Review * March/April 1994, Vol. 54, No. 2

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christine Gibbs is president of the American Society for Public Administration.

Notes 1. Steffens was commenting on the defeat of Seth Law

for a second term as Mayor during the post Tammany Hall era of government reform.

2. Use of the word "governance" according to Alexander Cockburn's column in a 1976 issue of The Widage Voice marks one as a political pundit as does the use of 'polity." I, therefore, will refrain from using the term.

The Line in Winter: An Academic Assessment of the First Report of te Nadonal Commission on the State and Local Public Service

Richard C. Elling, Wayne State University T those readers of the first report of the National Commission on the State and Local Public Service, will be sur-

prised if-like the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged 2nd edi- tion)-they understand the term "public ser- vice" to mean "government employment, the civil service." In Hard Truths/Tough Choices: An Agenda for State and Local Reform, the Winter Commission raises concerns ranging from structural reorganization and fiscal and personnel management reform through calls for campaign finance reform, strategies to enhance citizen involvement in policy mak- ing and service delivery, and federal action to deal with the soaring costs of Medicaid. The Commission's explanation for such breadth is that this report is intended to indicate the direction that its work "is taking based on the six hearings held in cities throughout the country and the book of research papers to be published in the fall of 1993..." (p. 8). The commission plans future reports that will flesh out the arguments made in the first report. This objective of Hard Truths\ Tough Choices explains the source of what many may

find to be another deficiency, i.e., very gener- al discussion of many of the report's recom- mendations. Despite its breadth, the body of the report is but 65 pages long. On the other hand, what this report lacks in detail, it gains in readability. The writing is vigorous, with a number of helpful tables and figures scattered throughout. This gives it considerable value as a pedagogic resource for courses on public management and state or local government. Indeed, the development of materials suitable for instruction, such as videocassettes, is one of the commission's goals.

Two other introductory points about the commission and its first report should be made. First, the commission asserts that it intends to be "a working commission" with a "continuing commitment to educate and motivate people and to make our work part of the 'new movement' to improve the capac- ity of state and local governments so that they can lead and manage effectively." Second, while often visionary, the commission is not naive. It recognizes how difficult it will be to achieve many of its proposals. Nor does it make the sort of airy aims for financial sav- ings that have often accompanied govern- mental reform proposals in the past and that are contained in the Clinton Administration's recent National Performance Review. These are claims that often come back to haunt those who have made them. The Winter Commission is even willing to admit that some of its recommendations will require the expenditure of additional tax dollars!

Central to the commission's recommen- dations is a "path to high-performance gov- ernment based on the trust and lead strate- gy..." (p. 9). That is:

Give leaders the authority to act. Put them in charge of lean, responsive agen- cies. Hire and nurture knowledgeable, motivated employees, and give them the freedom to innovate in accomplishing the agencies' missions. Engage citizens in the business of government, while at the same time encouraging them to be partners in problem-solving (p. 9). Much of what flows from this strategy

owes an intellectual debt to the "reinventing government" arguments of David Osborne, Ted Gaebler, and others. This literature is, in turn, an example of what I would call "soft- core" public choice theory. But the commis- sion does not completely embrace this world- view. There is, for example, only very limited discussion of privatization. While acknowl- edging that privatization "can bring freshness and energy into government," the commis- sion cautions that it is "far from a cure-all and can actually increase fragmentation of respon- sibilities as well as long-term costs" (p. 38).

Turning to some of the specific recom- mendations in the report, its emphasis on the need for structural revamping of executive branches as a key to achieving one of its cen- tral goals, namely, removing the barriers to stronger executive leadership, is uninspired. Leaving aside the issue of the desirability of completely embracing the "quest for execu- tive leadership" (Kaufman, 1956), and even granting that structural barriers matter as much as the commission seems to think they do, there is the fact that the limits placed on chief executive leadership by the presence of numerous independently elected executive officials, and by a plethora of "overlapping or underperforming" units, are less serious than the commission assumes. Certainly many of the 300 directly elected state officials men- tioned by the commission do not do terribly important things. While this would seem to argue for transferring their duties to regular line agencies, it also suggests that trying to do so is not worth the expenditure of valuable political capital. As for reducing the fragmen- tation of the executive branch, James Conant (1988) has demonstrated that much progress has been made, at least at the state level, in creating the kind of integrated administrative structures touted by the commission. A Texas state government official quoted in the report laments the fragmentation of that state's executive branch. But, I would submit that Texas is dearly the exception.

The commission is on more compelling ground when it turns its attention to enhanc- ing the ability of public managers to use fiscal and human resources effectivdy by revamp- ing systems of budgeting, procurement, and personnel management. My recent survey (1992) of the views of state managers in ten states regarding the severity of some 50 potential impediments to the effective man- agement of their units found that those relat- ing to fiscal and human resources were among the most serious. Thus, 51 percent considered difficulties in adequately reward- ing outstanding employees to be a serious impediment. One third saw both difficulties in disciplining low performers and civil ser- vice procedures for recruiting and selecting staff to be serious problems. Roughly one quarter complained about "excessive restric- tions on appropriations." Among these man- agers, 80 percent or more believed that pos- sessing the authority to reprogram funds, lump-sum appropriations, and the delegation of major personnel functions to operating agencies, would improve the quality of agen- cy management. But restrictions on manage- rial use of fiscal and human resources, while often counterproductive to effective delivery of public services, were often imposed in response to genuine abuses of public trust. At

Mini Forum: Reinventing Government (TOPS: Reviewing the Winter Commission Report) 107

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions