class 4-1 PA

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.160

Thomas O'Toole: 2 40. Yeah.

00:00:12.920 --> 00:00:35.510

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, yeah, yeah.

00:01:26.450 --> 00:01:40.220

Thomas O'Toole: yeah.

00:02:17.240 --> 00:02:24.350

Thomas O'Toole: III perform good zoom.

00:02:30.070 --> 00:02:40.809

Thomas O'Toole: Alright, as everyone doing. Okay, we have a good. This is, I think it's the first week where I have you twice.

00:02:41.200 --> 00:02:50.069

Thomas O'Toole: You can't escape, and only have, like the one the one holiday. So far right? Hope everyone's doing well. I understand you have a micro prelim next week.

00:02:50.570 --> 00:02:55.580

Thomas O'Toole: so maybe I'll bring in candy or something to give you that sugar rush to get through that.

00:02:55.810 --> 00:03:01.019

Thomas O'Toole: You also have your first directive memo with Simon due in this class tonight.

00:03:01.030 --> 00:03:08.829

Thomas O'Toole:? you know. So I didn't get many questions about it over the weekend, which means one of 2 things. Either everybody's on track

00:03:08.870 --> 00:03:11.509

Thomas O'Toole: or you're really overworking, Molly.

00:03:11.530 --> 00:03:29.129

Thomas O'Toole: Which is fine, that's what she's there for. But if you do have any questions. I mean, you know some of you that have contacted me by now know I'm pretty responsive. So don't be afraid. You know, contact me and and we'll we'll help you out. You know. No, no stress. It's the first time you've written something like this for me

00:03:29.170 --> 00:03:30.860

Thomas O'Toole: so you know.

00:03:31.070 --> 00:03:43.230

Thomas O'Toole: Don't don't worry about it. You're here to learn, so we'll see how things go. But again, I mean, if you're freaking out at 1145 tonight, or something like that. And you're just blanking out

00:03:43.260 --> 00:03:49.939

Thomas O'Toole: you know. Just write to me. Let me know what's going on, and and we'll help you out all right. Don't don't stress about it. Okay.

00:03:50.520 --> 00:03:57.570

Thomas O'Toole: all right. So we actually have a lot to cover today, because we're a little bit behind on the readings. Right? Which kind of happens

00:03:57.580 --> 00:04:22.599

Thomas O'Toole: the first couple of weeks. In this course. Because we get chatty. There's a lot of Exposition. We have to go through kind of setting the table. So I wanna get right into it. And I wanna start with Woodrow Wilson's article on the study of administration. This is actually a really believe it or not. This is actually a seminal article in the field of public administration right?

00:04:22.600 --> 00:04:34.349

Thomas O'Toole: despite all the critique of Wilson. It's one of those articles you just kinda have to read. It's part of the canon of the field. But all of that, you know all of the discussion we had

00:04:34.350 --> 00:04:56.609

Thomas O'Toole: around critiques of Wilson. Kind of the the racism that we've identified in his career. You kinda have to to to have that all in perspective when you read this, because I do think that there's a certain degree of exceptionalism that comes out in this article that's very consistent with our understanding of Wilson's career, and in his thought, in hindsight. So

00:04:56.610 --> 00:05:08.220

Thomas O'Toole: he starts this article on the study of administration with kind of a gripe. Right? So he starts by venting a frustration. Anyone recall what that gripe or that frustration was.

00:05:15.950 --> 00:05:16.750

Thomas O'Toole: yeah.

00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:22.329

Thomas O'Toole: monarchy. This is going on about us. It's harder to to organize

00:05:22.570 --> 00:05:23.730

Thomas O'Toole: like a.

00:05:23.770 --> 00:05:28.420

Thomas O'Toole: But democracy really is a monarchy and kind of like the British.

00:05:28.580 --> 00:05:36.789

Thomas O'Toole: Well, no, it's sort of like. So it's it's he's thinking about like, why have we thought about the subject of administration before?

00:05:36.900 --> 00:05:42.780

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So he started this article by raising this really curious facts. Yeah, good.

00:05:43.230 --> 00:05:45.440

Thomas O'Toole: He's turned the article by

00:05:45.620 --> 00:05:54.000

Thomas O'Toole: bank. Grant was the weapon of systemic study in the field of public administration, with all just like, based on interpretation. Looking at the analytical deep diving.

00:05:54.560 --> 00:06:19.790

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, right? So so his gripe is really that we spend too much time thinking about that stuff right? We could spend too much time thinking about democracy versus monarchy right? And not enough time, you know, thinking about what we understand is the most obvious part of government, which is administration. Right? So he says, you know, there's this curious fact that all the study of politics, you know, began about 2,000 years earlier.

00:06:19.790 --> 00:06:32.310

Thomas O'Toole: It wasn't until the nineteenth century that administration which we he refers to, as quote the most obvious part, he literally says, it's the most obvious part of government. Right began to demand attention. So he writes.

00:06:32.310 --> 00:06:52.380

Thomas O'Toole: public administration is government in action right? And we talked about that before all those things that we take for granted on a daily basis. That's public administration in action. We're not conscious of it unless we really think about it right, but that's government in action, and one might very naturally expect to find that government in action had arrested the attention

00:06:52.380 --> 00:07:12.370

Thomas O'Toole: and provoke the scrutiny of writers of politics very early in the history of systematic thought. Right? Why doesn't anybody care about this stuff? Because it is the most obvious, the old, our most obvious engagement with government. Right? But that wasn't the case. Rather. Prior scholarship had focused on really abstract stuff like the constitution of government. Right?

00:07:12.370 --> 00:07:39.329

Thomas O'Toole: The nature of the state, the efference essence of sovereignty, monarchy versus democracy, all that kind of stuff, all that theoretical stuff that they look at over in the government department right? And they just while away on hammocks sort of banning about all day. So until Wilson, the study of politics was really the study of public law, and not necessarily the study of public administration. Right? So in this essay he's essentially arguing that the time had come to make

00:07:39.350 --> 00:08:02.070

Thomas O'Toole: the execution of government policy more businesslike. Right? That's kind of the the argument that he's laying out in this in this essay. So he says, the field of administration is a field of business. This is like one of the most famous quotes from this article, right. The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics. Right?

00:08:02.090 --> 00:08:10.949

Thomas O'Toole: So this article really framed a debate which continues in the field of public administration to this day, and it's called the politics administration, dichotomy.

00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:33.630

Thomas O'Toole: right? Whether it's possible to develop an administrative state absent, the hurry and strife of politics right? So slowly other scholars began to gravitate around this perspective right, which was that government could essentially be divided into 2 functions, right? Political decision making and administrative execution. So from Wilson's perspective.

00:08:33.630 --> 00:08:52.869

Thomas O'Toole: Politics has to do with policies as execution of the State's will right, while administration has to do with the execution of those policies the implication, though. And here's where the exceptionalism come in right. The implication is that administration is not only different from politics, but somehow it's better

00:08:53.040 --> 00:09:18.210

Thomas O'Toole: right. Because certain scientific principles existed, and once these principles were discovered, right administrators would be experts in their work only if they applied those principles right now, what are some of the pros and cons of Wilson's argument? And you can think about this from either a normative or practical perspective, and you don't even have to have read Wilson's article to think about this? I mean intuitively.

00:09:18.210 --> 00:09:23.450

Thomas O'Toole: does that make sense right? This distinction between politics and administration?

00:09:23.550 --> 00:09:50.800

Thomas O'Toole: Can we apply scientific management principles to public administration, either the theory or practice of public administration in the way that we do to business administration. Right? That's what they're looking for in this. They're looking for scientific principles of the sort that we apply in business administration. And we're saying we can do that in the public sector. Right? So this is part of our fleshing out of what makes the practice of public administration distinct

00:09:50.800 --> 00:10:00.529

Thomas O'Toole: from the practice of business administration. So what are the pros and cons of Wilson's argument. And you can also think about this against the the perspective of accountability.

00:10:00.590 --> 00:10:22.690

Thomas O'Toole: All right, that we've discussed up until this point in the course I mean, or your professional or personal experience. Does this even make you know normative sense? I mean, should politics be distinguished? Or should it be completely divorced from administration? That's kind of the normative question, right? And then the technical question or the the question that revolves around practice is, can we do that? Can we actually do that?

00:10:22.810 --> 00:10:33.419

Thomas O'Toole: And again, I mean, you can think about this from the United States if you're from the United States or your own country, like, what are the intersections between politics and administration? And should those intersections be.

00:10:33.480 --> 00:10:37.950

Thomas O'Toole: you know, more steadfast, I guess, more more rigid?

00:10:38.350 --> 00:10:45.269

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. Say, if I understood the politics. Aspect that we'll still talk about as more about

00:10:45.510 --> 00:10:52.709

Thomas O'Toole: appointment of like a specific individuals who are running. And that's the optics aspect of it. So

00:10:53.200 --> 00:10:59.310

Thomas O'Toole: I think, you know, moving on from that like a rotation code like that

00:11:00.110 --> 00:11:02.619

Thomas O'Toole: doctrine of rotation, or just

00:11:02.730 --> 00:11:16.039

Thomas O'Toole: giving it to giving governmental opposition people that have contributed the most to that organization. I think that is ineffective because would be more beneficial than stepfast

00:11:16.430 --> 00:11:22.529

Thomas O'Toole: and expert and experts working on specific aspects of public administration.

00:11:24.210 --> 00:11:36.580

Thomas O'Toole: giving out positions to people who just sure. And we've discussed that before. Right? So the the influence of political appointees, and this tension that can exist between political appointees and career. Civil servants, right?

00:11:36.580 --> 00:12:01.349

Thomas O'Toole: Most Federal agencies in the United States have political appointees that are secretary, level, right? And so those appointees, they're they're a typical rotation in offices about 2 years. That's the amount of time these appointees spend as secretaries. Why? Because they're not making enough money. A lot of them are drawn from the from the private sector, and they just don't want to do it for that long right? And why are they were given those positions? They're usually rewarded those positions on the basis of supporting a campaign.

00:12:01.670 --> 00:12:28.809

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So you have that very fast rotation in office. And the consequences of which can be pretty disastrous. Right? So there is this notion that you know, if you separate politics and from from administration in the space of leadership, of agents, of appointing leaders, of agencies, you would have leadership, of agencies that have more experience and credibility in their fields. And the theory would be that they would be more effective leaders and managers. Right? That's that's kind of what we're getting at. Yeah, absolutely.

00:12:28.890 --> 00:12:57.699

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. I think that practically be something very difficult to do. To, you know, up to this point we've always had it now, all of a sudden it's it would be a divorce. But I do see the buddy, and he's saying and many of the things that we see happening today specifically in this country, how it would be beneficial to sort of separate them, at least to a slight degree. Is, I feel that, you know, every time any President comes in it's and I can only imagine what it's like within each of these agencies

00:12:57.740 --> 00:13:08.830

Thomas O'Toole: to be there. And all of a sudden. Now, someone that's there, just because they donated, however, much money to someone's campaign, and they have no idea what they're talking about. And you've been doing this your entire life, and you're like, what the heck are you doing?

00:13:08.880 --> 00:13:19.850

Thomas O'Toole: So I could see both sides of it, and why it would be important to separate it. But then, also, practically how difficult it could be to actually move forward with that action.

00:13:19.980 --> 00:13:25.729

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, that's exactly right. And again, we'll look at this case. Later on, in the course the interview with Al Zuck

00:13:25.760 --> 00:13:54.990

Thomas O'Toole: Al zuck was a career civil servant. That he has to grapple with a political appointee. I mentioned this case. Who wants him to execute a sole source contract for a colleague of his? No public sector experience, no experience. So this is at the Department of Labor. No experience and labor policy comes in like a freight train. And so there's this tension like, what does up. Do you know what I mean? Does he execute the contract? You know you've got the appointee that's threatening to fire him? So there's always these tensions. Right? Yeah.

00:13:54.990 --> 00:14:04.379

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. I think at the local level it's really difficult for the politics from the practice of administration.

00:14:04.540 --> 00:14:07.270

Thomas O'Toole: But at the same time

00:14:07.310 --> 00:14:13.310

Thomas O'Toole: kind of the political divide looks really different. At a local level. There is less of a

00:14:13.390 --> 00:14:15.440

Thomas O'Toole:? you know.

00:14:16.470 --> 00:14:35.650

Thomas O'Toole: separation, as we see at the national level. So it doesn't really cause the same level of like like change every time the administration comes in. But those global public administrators, they face public opinion, and.

00:14:35.710 --> 00:14:43.049

Thomas O'Toole: you know, falls into the daily basis of the job. and there would be no way. There's like no practical way to suffering that

00:14:43.170 --> 00:14:58.100

Thomas O'Toole:? in, like their day-to-day lives as members of the town that they all are administrators of. It's just a local politics is so embedded into the institution of local restrictions.

00:14:58.670 --> 00:15:07.199

Thomas O'Toole: It would require restructuring the entirety of it. And it probably bring in outside individuals to administrate these towns.

00:15:07.500 --> 00:15:08.160

You

00:15:08.300 --> 00:15:22.890

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. And when we say politics right? We don't just mean the influence of elected officials. Right? Ii heard you're talking about nepotism right? Like, wh, what's the definition of nepotism versus clientelism. That's politics.

00:15:22.890 --> 00:15:47.720

Thomas O'Toole: right? That that kind of politics. Right? So it's not just kind of the influence of elected officials, which is what comes to mind and what we'll spend kind of, you know, a week or 2 thinking about. But it's also the influence of, you know, any stakeholders in the environment of a public administrator. Right? I mean, that's really what we're focused on this week is thinking about, who are the typical stakeholders in that force field of public administration. And

00:15:47.720 --> 00:16:02.919

Thomas O'Toole: what's their relative weight or their relative influence on something? Our organization is trying to do right? So it's not just. But another point you raise connects to this notion of, if we had this very stark separation of politics from administration.

00:16:02.920 --> 00:16:06.430

Thomas O'Toole: How would we? How would we sort of tether

00:16:06.450 --> 00:16:32.039

Thomas O'Toole: civil servants to the popular will like right? So so from a representative democracy perspective, we can see that you know one of the pros of the argument that there should be an influence of politics and administration is because civil servants have a great degree of discretionary authority in their work, and so tethering them to the electorate in that way is one way of ensuring that they are accountable to something other than themselves.

00:16:32.040 --> 00:16:48.059

Thomas O'Toole: So that's kind of like the the flip side of what Wilson is arguing right that maybe you want some degree of influence of politics on administration, because otherwise. what other means do you have to keep administrators accountable to the electorate. Yeah.

00:16:48.060 --> 00:17:10.810

Thomas O'Toole: elected officials or public administrators or stakeholders of their own environment. And it's less of the case at national level. We're often policies that elect officials or public administrators are carrying out less of the impact of them than daily lives at the local level. It does have different dynamics between this this.

00:17:10.810 --> 00:17:38.500

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, for sure. And I mean, you can see, you know, we we started at the course, talking about intersecting identities. Right? And so think about, you know, if if you're a member of a of a local legislature, and your boss comes to a a public meeting and sort of like starts haranguing on on some. You know, some local law that you're you're considering. I mean, that's obviously having an influence on your thinking and potentially on your actions.

00:17:38.500 --> 00:18:03.520

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So it's that kind of politics as well or the pastor, or your church, or whatever you know what I mean. So we're thinking about that kind of of politics or those kinds of politics. In addition to kind of the influence of elected officials. Right? Yeah. And I think one of the factors would like local politics that goes into like like, who is fit to have these positions, that many of these local positions that

00:18:03.520 --> 00:18:09.640

Thomas O'Toole: most people who live in the Taliban's town or state of county politics. Many of those positions are like.

00:18:09.740 --> 00:18:35.939

Thomas O'Toole: The populace is completely epithet. Like my local town adjudicator of deeds. Who cares who that is? Yeah, but it matters who it is. But most people, including me, I don't really care who does that job. And most of the time people done that job for 20 years because they run almost on imposed every time you know where it's the same family. It's almost like a generational thing, right? Where that same family kind of assumes the same sessions through generations. Right? Yeah.

00:18:36.130 --> 00:18:37.550

Thomas O'Toole: Somebody. Yeah. Midlands.

00:18:37.560 --> 00:18:46.270

Thomas O'Toole: I think it's kind of an interesting argument, on the one hand, make things more efficient and more specialized by separating all things local, arguing

00:18:46.560 --> 00:18:53.220

Thomas O'Toole: particularly focus more on the job and the American Utopian dream on the meritocracy. But.

00:18:53.280 --> 00:19:01.240

Thomas O'Toole: like what you see now is the Flip side where you create this whole cultural method, like everybody's talking about the same family. Doctor, you're you're taking me

00:19:01.730 --> 00:19:07.660

Thomas O'Toole: ironically. Democratic aspect of making power with people. What do you want? Which would be great?

00:19:07.750 --> 00:19:23.939

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, you're essentially I mean so. But you have to be careful because you're almost. You're just about to fall into the trap right? Because what we're essentially what he's essentially arguing is that we want to reduce public administration to a technocratic enterprise.

00:19:24.170 --> 00:19:35.040

Thomas O'Toole: And so what are the consequences of that reductionism? That's kind of what doll's getting at in his essay. Right? You really? Yeah. Oh, I was just going to mention the like

00:19:35.160 --> 00:19:53.760

Thomas O'Toole: different questions that he raised like, what questions do public administrators answer. What questions do like the Constitution like, what is the like? The will enacted on both sides? Why, the separation was important, and then I've like kind of thought about the way you brought in nepotism, and how individual connected them from like

00:19:53.760 --> 00:20:06.119

Thomas O'Toole: the American dream of a meritocracy versus like we were saying, what stops you from just hiring your associates associate, associate to run all of these like small into like small, like

00:20:06.830 --> 00:20:19.610

Thomas O'Toole: seemingly meaningless point. Yeah, in like public administration until you have something like Fema. How you yeah seen the disaster that came through from someone not watching and like enacting that systemic like.

00:20:19.690 --> 00:20:48.379

Thomas O'Toole: you know, will of power through a public administrative. Yeah, you're spot on. And one of the really interesting things to think about like if you haven't read like, if you haven't read the Constitution in a while like even I don't think you as a lot of us citizens, I don't think. Read the Constitution all the way through, or they read the Bill of Rights cause. That's the that's like the really, you know that that's the stuff that that has generated the most controversy right? The most Supreme Court cases, most of these miles these landmark cases. We look at the Bill of Rights, but nobody ever looks at

00:20:48.380 --> 00:20:50.880

Thomas O'Toole: the articles right cause. That's just boring

00:20:50.880 --> 00:21:04.799

Thomas O'Toole: like, who wants to like? Then do all this stuff right. But like, if you think back to your reading of the Constitution or those of you from other countries. Think about your own constitutions right? Where in the Constitution is public administration discuss.

00:21:08.210 --> 00:21:15.689

Thomas O'Toole: But it's not really part of the constitution, constitution about principles, values like very general like.

00:21:36.250 --> 00:21:44.130

Thomas O'Toole: it always seems different. Yeah. So so public administration is actually never explicitly discussed in the Constitution.

00:21:44.240 --> 00:21:55.830

Thomas O'Toole: A lot of what we know as public administration was. Really, you can look at kind of the architecture of the Constitution and extrapolate a couple different things. Right? So, for example, Federalism.

00:21:55.950 --> 00:22:09.820

Thomas O'Toole: that's one of the bedrock principles of United the United States intergovernmental system. Right? United States is a federal system of government, meaning that there are specific powers that are distributed across the federal, State and local government.

00:22:09.950 --> 00:22:14.469

Thomas O'Toole: Where is the term Federalism ever explicitly discussed in the Constitution?

00:22:15.560 --> 00:22:31.109

Thomas O'Toole: It's so easy to do a word. Search now, right like you could bring the term. Federalism is never mentioned a single time in the Constitution, but it is like this bedrock principle that defines how our entire system of government functions. Right? Even though it's not mentioned.

00:22:31.110 --> 00:22:47.860

Thomas O'Toole: they were extrapolating certain principles of Federalism from the language of the Constitution, right from the architecture of the Constitution. Okay. Now, why wouldn't they sort of flesh out? You're right. It's it's sort of like this statement of higher principles. But another reason why they didn't flesh out public administrations because they didn't think it was that important.

00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:52.260

Thomas O'Toole: Not only did they think it was not that important, but they thought that fools could do it.

00:22:52.490 --> 00:23:06.199

Thomas O'Toole: So they didn't even think about sort of meritocracy, or anything like that, because when it came to them that you know, maybe we shouldn't be using a spoil system to point people to to civil service positions. They were like, well, what does it matter, anyway? Because any fool could do this work? I mean, it's government.

100

00:23:06.360 --> 00:23:13.070

Thomas O'Toole: right? It's all that hard right. But over time, as as politics and society and the economy evolve.

101

00:23:13.080 --> 00:23:34.129

Thomas O'Toole: They had to take it seriously. They had to think about, and obviously the spoil system evolved into, you know, a really destructive right, a catastrophically destructive system where you had, you know, fraud, waste, abuse, negligence? They had to do something about it, but when the Constitution was founded they didn't really think much about it, because it didn't really matter to them. They thought anybody could do this kind of work

102

00:23:34.130 --> 00:23:46.049

Thomas O'Toole: right. I think you feel good that you're here like doing work. Anybody could do right back. So you know, as I mentioned last week, you know, and we can think about this from a normative or practical perspective. It was only recently kind of the

103

00:23:46.050 --> 00:24:14.090

Thomas O'Toole: the racist legacy of Wilson has been brought into the foreground. It was never a secret right? So he segregated the Federal Civil Service. That was very well documented. His treatment of black civil rights leaders. Right? So William Monroe Trotter in particular, whom he threw out of the Oval office. During a particularly contentious meeting that you had in 1914, Trotter had actually originally been a supporter of Wilson's, because Wilson had in a very performative way.

104

00:24:14.090 --> 00:24:20.380

Thomas O'Toole: I'm committed to improving civil rights, but, as we all know, Jim Crow just worsened over the course of his administration.

105

00:24:20.380 --> 00:24:32.690

Thomas O'Toole: But if you think about the scientific management movement that revolved around Wilson's work, and that kind of pervades the thinking in this article. You can see how someone who is a racist would find this particularly appealing

106

00:24:32.760 --> 00:24:36.400

Thomas O'Toole: right? Dehumanizing administration.

107

00:24:36.460 --> 00:24:47.629

Thomas O'Toole: So if you think back to that mini lecture I had online on scientific management. It was a period where management, scholarship and practice was really heavily influenced by

108

00:24:47.770 --> 00:25:04.909

Thomas O'Toole: the very nascent field of industrial engineering at the time. Right? So Frederick Wilson Taylor. Right? Taylorism, and it's load shovels. Right? Ford ism right. The assembly line reducing public administration to a technocratic enterprise. Right? So here's a quote from Taylor, just to show you how how great a guy he was.

109

00:25:04.950 --> 00:25:33.090

Thomas O'Toole: Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental makeup the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to that would for him be the grinding monotony of work. Of this character, therefore, the workman who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work.

110

00:25:33.210 --> 00:25:40.580

Thomas O'Toole: Nice guy, right? But that's what they had in mind, sort of dehumanizing all of these administrative processes. Right?

111

00:25:40.580 --> 00:26:05.119

Thomas O'Toole: So this was the main critique of this very rational approach suggested by scientific management and those that wanted to apply scientific management principles to a field like public administration. Right? It served to dehumanizing work, dehumanizing the other right. Is an inevitable aspect of the kind of administrative evil and racism that we looked at in those 2 articles we had to read. Was it last week or the week?

112

00:26:05.120 --> 00:26:20.079

Thomas O'Toole: I think it was the week prior right? But a lot, you know. Many Pr scholars and practitioners found Wilson's argument really appealing. Right? So if our objective again, some of you raise this point is to develop a bureaucracy that's neutral and objective in its work.

113

00:26:20.090 --> 00:26:49.969

Thomas O'Toole: Then, separating politics from administration would seem really integral to achieving that kind of neutrality. Right? So the question is whether Wilson's argument is a normative or a practical one. Is it possible? Is it even possible to separate politics from administration? If so how would you go about doing it? I mean, there are practices we can think of that. Try to separate politics and administration as much as we can but those of you from other countries. What is this intercept? What is this intersection of politics and administration look like?

114

00:26:49.970 --> 00:27:04.349

Thomas O'Toole: What is the influence like? You know, we've talked a lot about. You know how this works in the United States, but those of you from other countries. What are the practices that are in place in trying to, you know, develop a sense of political neutrality. In civil service.

115

00:27:14.770 --> 00:27:17.469

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

116

00:27:21.550 --> 00:27:36.349

Thomas O'Toole: Administration is also always part of the policy.

117

00:27:49.350 --> 00:27:51.029

Thomas O'Toole: It's not practical.

118

00:27:51.330 --> 00:27:53.580

Yeah, right?

119

00:27:55.470 --> 00:27:58.270

Thomas O'Toole: Anyone else? It's kind of a sensitive discussion. Yeah.

120

00:27:58.530 --> 00:28:02.120

Thomas O'Toole: yeah, I was just like reflecting

121

00:28:03.080 --> 00:28:14.890

Thomas O'Toole: politician administration in terms of influencing how? How the policy is being.

122

00:28:15.150 --> 00:28:25.790

Thomas O'Toole: You know, they have. Maybe they don't have an expert interest on the technicalities of the policy, but they have knowledge. They have a network.

123

00:28:25.940 --> 00:28:45.560

Thomas O'Toole: how policy works. And that's how

124

00:28:45.590 --> 00:28:47.460

Thomas O'Toole: in a polynomial

125

00:28:47.730 --> 00:29:09.339

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. And you can see, I mean, it's so. It's not across the board where political appointments are always, you know, catastrophic, right? I mean, they do bring a certain level of leadership and management acumen into the agencies. Their appointments ahead. Right? So you know they're usually coming from the private sector that got a lot of corporate experience which give them background and developing public private partnerships.

126

00:29:09.340 --> 00:29:20.450

Thomas O'Toole: They understand at least the values of profit oriented enterprise. They understand the value of efficiency, right? Which is, it's a problem in public administration, right? That's pretty obvious.

127

00:29:20.450 --> 00:29:47.500

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So some of the strongest critiques of Wilson, and waivers scientific management and rational bureaucratic concepts generally. Came from scholars like Doll. Right? So what's the central critique that doll is raising against this rigid application of scientific management principles in public administration. Right? So he's actually attacking this for both a normative and a practical perspective. Right? So what are the what are the gripes that he's raising them?

128

00:29:48.850 --> 00:29:50.440

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

129

00:29:50.460 --> 00:30:10.609

Thomas O'Toole: the that values behavior and culture. We're like a big prohibitor for establishing like a universal set of standards. Public administration will of the public. Yeah. Say so, spot on. And I'm going to be even more blunt about it. Right? So he he doesn't really mince words right? So he's saying, public administration is too messy

130

00:30:10.780 --> 00:30:31.539

Thomas O'Toole: right for this rigid application of scientific management principles. And why is it messy? Because, as a field that's obligated to incorporate human behavior to a much greater extent than business administration? Right? Humans are not load shovels right? And you can't just predict efficiency with the same degree of precision as tailor predicted. Efficiency.

131

00:30:31.540 --> 00:30:52.290

Thomas O'Toole: With shovels and sand. So you're right. It's in an attempt to make the science of public administration analogous to the natural sciences. That's what they're looking for. Right? The laws or putative laws are stripped of normative values, right of the distortions created by the incorrigible individual psyche, right human behavior, which is sometimes irrational.

132

00:30:52.440 --> 00:30:57.660

Thomas O'Toole: right and of the presumably irrelevant effects of cultural environment.

133

00:30:58.090 --> 00:31:13.589

Thomas O'Toole: Right? If I drop a pencil in Ithaca. it's gonna fall to the ground. If I go to Dublin, it's going to fall to the ground. If I go to Beijing, it's going to fall to the ground. That's the kind of scientific management principle that we're looking to apply to public administration.

134

00:31:14.180 --> 00:31:32.470

Thomas O'Toole: right? And they're not finding it. And Doll says they never will. Right? So there are 3 problems that Doll identifies in the articulation of public administration as a science. Any good. Did you have a question?

135

00:31:32.850 --> 00:31:36.100

Thomas O'Toole: Don't generalize of Hitler's human behaviors

136

00:31:36.230 --> 00:31:40.790

Thomas O'Toole: in psychology.

137

00:31:41.130 --> 00:31:43.990

Thomas O'Toole: coordinator. sherry, he said.

138

00:31:44.330 --> 00:31:50.670

Thomas O'Toole: All the administration right? Psychological aspect.

139

00:31:50.690 --> 00:31:53.069

Thomas O'Toole: We just generalize things to make these.

140

00:31:53.230 --> 00:32:21.239

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, I know. Yeah, I mean, so this is kind of like, if, again, if you apply to do this seminar with me next fall in comparative public administration. This is stuff we riff on for the entire semester. Right? What are the context factors that contribute to an administrative phenomenon that we're looking at. Right? And so Doll isn't saying like, don't compare anything he's saying. Let's be upfront about the the unique context factors that contribute to what we're seeing.

141

00:32:21.490 --> 00:32:47.240

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So he's allowing for a degree of relativism. Right? So the first problem, he says, is that values or normative concerns. The difference between is and ought. Right are for the most part invisible to science. Right? As we discussed earlier, you know, public and nonprofit administrators by virtue of their their mission orientation serving the public at large are always concerned with values. That's why we start the course thinking about identity. Right?

142

00:32:47.240 --> 00:33:04.799

Thomas O'Toole: Both the values that are influencing them from the political environment. And again, we're not just thinking of political environment as the influence of elected officials, right as well as the values that individual managers think about right. Everything that's coming to bear on them when they make their own decisions right?

143

00:33:04.800 --> 00:33:23.230

Thomas O'Toole: And from dolls. Perspective values are highly relativistic. Right? I gave this example to you a couple of weeks ago. Right? He writes very correctly on the issue of efficiency. Right? So this is why we have to be careful when we say, let's make government run like a business, because the paramount concern, the paramount value in business is efficiency

144

00:33:23.230 --> 00:33:27.580

Thomas O'Toole: right? So he says. what is efficiency? What is that?

145

00:33:27.590 --> 00:33:38.890

Thomas O'Toole: Belson and Dachau were efficient by one scale of values? Right? Belsen and Daca were concentration camps. And in any case, why is efficiency the ultimate test?

146

00:33:39.350 --> 00:33:53.790

Thomas O'Toole: You know, we're so enamored with what's going on in the private sector, we never stop to think about. Why are we holding public administration accountable to the value of efficiency? Efficiency is obviously an important value in public administration. But it's one of many

147

00:33:53.950 --> 00:34:02.509

Thomas O'Toole: according to what, and whose scale of values is efficiency placed on the highest pedestal? Right? Is not the worship of efficiency itself

148

00:34:02.550 --> 00:34:05.830

Thomas O'Toole: a particular expression of a special value. Judgment?

149

00:34:06.050 --> 00:34:30.639

Thomas O'Toole: So he suggests that you know any thorough pragmatic analysis of public administration has to lay bare right the values that are inherent in decision, options and management objectives. Right? The second point he raises is that scientific management and rigid bureaucratic organization, right of the kind that was advocated by Wilson and waiver depends on an assumption of strict rationality.

150

00:34:30.679 --> 00:34:41.060

Thomas O'Toole: In human behavior. Right? So here's that that trauma that I'm bringing in from microeconomics. Sorry? It's it's have you been dealing with this yet? Like the assumptions of Russia? I can

151

00:34:41.179 --> 00:34:56.969

Thomas O'Toole: but he says individuals are dominated by reason, or they are so dominated by the technical process as on the assembly line. There's that there's that Taylorism. There's that fortism. You can see, kind of the influence of that in their thinking right, that their individual preferences may be safely ignored.

152

00:34:56.969 --> 00:35:13.640

Thomas O'Toole: That means that all of those assumptions of strict rationality. If you're going to apply scientific management principles to decision making in the public sector, they would have to hold. And they don't. Why? Because some decision making in the public sector is irrational. Why? Because it's political.

153

00:35:14.350 --> 00:35:21.960

Thomas O'Toole: Right? Okay. His third critique is that public administration is heavily conditioned by its social and cultural context.

154

00:35:21.960 --> 00:35:48.640

Thomas O'Toole: And he doesn't. Just, you know we can. You know, we he's thinking about this from a global perspective but even within our own countries we know that different regions, different municipalities have different social or cultural contexts, right? And so to create a universally applicable science of public administration is to assume the transcendence of management principles right across national and cultural boundaries, and he mentions this example of transplanting the British Civil Service system to the United States

155

00:35:48.640 --> 00:36:16.560

Thomas O'Toole: or the example of transplanting new public management principles onto South Korea, which is one of the examples that II open the course with. Right? So again, it's not that he's arguing against comparative analysis and thinking about comparative best practices is he's reinforcing that any comparative analysis in public administration has to be informed by the political culture that's underpinning. The administrative state. Right? Okay? So now, if Wilson is arguing for a strict dichotomy

156

00:36:16.560 --> 00:36:31.359

Thomas O'Toole: between politics and administration, so we're looking at kind of a spectrum of thought on this intersection between politics. Administration, right? We go to Nibachi, girdle and pepper. Right? Public administration in dark times Nobachi actually teaches at at Syracuse.

157

00:36:31.500 --> 00:36:55.010

Thomas O'Toole: So first of all, why didn't botchy girdle and Pepper argue that these are dark times? Right? II. So you know I just said just a side note. I love some of the the literature in this section like this might bore the hell out of you, but some of the pros is so good like, if like, if you look at Norton Long's article, too. Like so good right? I mean, like it's just beautiful pros. But why do they say that that these are dark times?

158

00:37:01.020 --> 00:37:08.599

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, got, just look at the pay. Yeah, go ahead.

159

00:37:09.050 --> 00:37:11.029

Thomas O'Toole: yeah.

160

00:37:17.690 --> 00:37:29.989

Thomas O'Toole: and discuss them

161

00:37:30.120 --> 00:37:35.470

Thomas O'Toole: to discuss efficiency

162

00:37:35.510 --> 00:37:44.630

Thomas O'Toole: also part of the

163

00:37:44.710 --> 00:38:11.299

Thomas O'Toole: right look, and not not to be a downer right cause. It's a Monday that's heavy for a Monday, but, like, you know, climate change, terrorism like, you know, war rac like everything. Right. Hyper partisanship. Some of you lose a hyper partisanship before, and that's actually a core of their argument. Right? So not only are the arguing that there's not a separation between politics and administration, but that administrators have an obligation, and that's the key for them, right? That administrators.

164

00:38:11.300 --> 00:38:34.940

Thomas O'Toole: folks like us right, have an obligation to serve as arbiters of political conflict. And to reinvent their practice in what they call a democratic ethos. Right? So what do they mean by that? What's a democratic ethos? What does that mean? In practice? Well, they they actually identify 2 different types, 2 different ethos. Right? One is a bureaucratic ethos, and one is a democratic ethos. So what's a bureaucratic ethos?

165

00:38:50.640 --> 00:38:51.490

Thomas O'Toole: Of

166

00:38:52.880 --> 00:38:58.030

Thomas O'Toole: what way to measure how successful initiatives are.

167

00:38:58.140 --> 00:39:00.980

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. So here's waiver's cog in the machine.

168

00:39:01.040 --> 00:39:17.029

Thomas O'Toole: Remember? Sort of that really pejorative. Take that. Yeah, like, we're all just cogs in the machine. That's what bureaucracy is. Right. So this is waivers cog in the machine. So they're arguing that a bureaucratic ethos embraces values like efficiency, efficacy, expertise, loyalty, and hierarchy. Right?

169

00:39:17.030 --> 00:39:40.580

Thomas O'Toole: It's very consistent with the principles of scientific management. So you're seeing how this connects right with the argument that that Wilson's laying out and the reinventing government movement right? Making government run more like a business advocating market based reforms in the public sector. And so what's the democratic ethos? What's kind of the flip side of that? Yeah.

170

00:39:40.600 --> 00:40:04.079

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. So it says, we've gotta be more than that. We've gotta be more than causing the machine right? We have to sort of wake up and sort of escape that mentality, right? So this emerged in the 19 sixties. They were. They were a group of scholars and practitioners that really grew dissatisfied. With this. You know fetishism with efficiency. Right? So they said, you know. They understood scientific management

171

00:40:04.080 --> 00:40:17.539

Thomas O'Toole: as inhumane, unresponsive, and democratically unaccountable. Right? So on page 136, they say scholars supporting the democratic ethos assert that public administrators can't be value neutral servants of the public will, but

172

00:40:17.540 --> 00:40:30.070

Thomas O'Toole: rather that administrative behavior should be grounded principally on higher order. Moral principles embedded in the notion of democratic government. Okay? And then they say, implicit in the democratic ethos is that government is obligated to educate.

173

00:40:30.310 --> 00:40:50.659

Thomas O'Toole: Remember, I said that before that as public administrators, it's also we are all teachers. We are all educators. Right? That's how you empower stakeholders. Right? So it says, we are obligated to educate, that is to say, inform, to impart knowledge, to increase citizen comprehension of and appreciation for the humanistic imperatives of democracy. Right is that true.

174

00:40:51.710 --> 00:41:01.630

Thomas O'Toole: hey? Do do administrators have obligations, you know, to further, you know, this democratic ethos that they're talking about. What are the sources of those obligations

175

00:41:03.170 --> 00:41:05.409

Thomas O'Toole: cause? I thought we were all blessing. Bless you!

176

00:41:05.880 --> 00:41:09.589

Thomas O'Toole: I thought we were all cogs in the machine. So where does that obligation come from?

177

00:41:15.480 --> 00:41:26.989

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, you should all have an answer to this right? You're all here because of some issue that you're passionate about, and to affect transformative change. Right? So you must want to be more than cogs in the machine. Right?

178

00:41:27.690 --> 00:41:33.340

Thomas O'Toole: So where does that come from? You must feel that obligation right? I mean, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

179

00:41:34.700 --> 00:41:36.419

Thomas O'Toole: So where does it come from? Yeah.

180

00:41:44.340 --> 00:41:49.660

Thomas O'Toole: you weren't under your legal

181

00:41:49.790 --> 00:41:53.189

Thomas O'Toole: But we're getting human, yeah, and

182

00:41:53.730 --> 00:41:55.840

Thomas O'Toole: very complex. And

183

00:41:56.040 --> 00:41:58.369

Thomas O'Toole: you're not, you know, pressure

184

00:41:58.490 --> 00:42:03.390

Thomas O'Toole: to be efficient. And

185

00:42:03.730 --> 00:42:11.480

Thomas O'Toole: there there is. There is always a question whether your policy or capital.

186

00:42:12.320 --> 00:42:26.049

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, absolutely. And what are the sources of ethical obligation, like, what are the like? So if if you're thinking about whether a decision that you're you're what you're sitting, you're contemplating right thinking about your decision options right?

187

00:42:26.080 --> 00:42:28.900

Thomas O'Toole: What are the sources of ethical obligation for you?

188

00:42:32.700 --> 00:42:34.230

Thomas O'Toole: Where do you get all those from?

189

00:42:37.670 --> 00:42:49.750

Thomas O'Toole: Well, different different? There are different sort of like, you know, reference groups or or reference points right? That you might have right, I mean, you know, and you come out. And the reason you're having so much trouble saying it is because

190

00:42:49.880 --> 00:42:56.630

Thomas O'Toole: we don't want we. We have trouble, kind of betraying the fact that we are interested in helping human beings

191

00:42:56.860 --> 00:43:24.859

Thomas O'Toole: right? We are interested in helping human beings because we love human beings right? And I don't know why that's so hard to say and articulate. So where do we get all those values from. We get it from our family. We get it from our constitutions, right? That that sort of description of higher order principles. We get it from religion we get. There's all sorts of of ethical, you know, sources of ethical obligations that we rely on when we make these kinds of decisions. But fundamentally, we are all here

192

00:43:24.860 --> 00:43:41.529

Thomas O'Toole: because we wanna help human beings because we love human beings. We empathize with human beings. And we want to improve their lives. That's it. It's so hard for us to say that. Why? Because we fetishize efficiency so much. That's the argument that doll is making. But if you think back like, think back on these cases that we've read so far.

193

00:43:41.590 --> 00:43:43.820

Thomas O'Toole: Right? The death of Marcella Pierce.

194

00:43:44.090 --> 00:43:55.310

Thomas O'Toole: Okay, the race and social justice initiative case right? Both of those cases represent the 2 sides of the coin. Right? The Navachi, Gerto, and Pepper are describing in their article.

195

00:43:55.330 --> 00:43:58.080

Thomas O'Toole: Right? There's a method to all this madness. Right?

196

00:43:58.450 --> 00:44:22.239

Thomas O'Toole: They're describing to those cases. Illustrate for you 2 sides of the coin. Right? So the death of Marcella pears clearly demonstrates the life threatening consequences of a bureaucratic ethos. When you dehumanize the work of public administrators, when you don't see the cases that you're meant to help, right the cases that you're working on as humans. Right? You become that cog in the machine.

197

00:44:22.390 --> 00:44:35.459

Thomas O'Toole: The race and social justice initiative clearly demonstrates the kind of empowerment right that Nabachi Gurgle and Pepper are thinking about when they think about the democratic ethos. So that's why I have you read

198

00:44:35.460 --> 00:44:53.040

Thomas O'Toole: those 2 cases before we discuss Nabachi girdle and pepper, because they clearly illustrate, on one hand, the bureaucratic ethos. What are the consequences of dehumanizing our work of treating the cases of the people that we're trying to help as numbers. And it's very easy to fall into that mentality right? Because, as we discussed.

199

00:44:53.060 --> 00:45:07.859

Thomas O'Toole: you know, in social work, you know, they're overwhelmed. They're underfunded, right? So it takes some effort to move beyond that and sort of adopt this democratic ethos in our work. But it's critical because you can see the results. If it's not right, I mean, it's it's catastrophic, alright.

200

00:45:09.290 --> 00:45:33.119

Thomas O'Toole: So I wanna return to 2 points that are, you know, connected to some of the content that I covered in the mini lectures and readings in in, I think, in module one. Because these 2 points segue really nicely into our topic for this week, which is thinking about stakeholder environment. So the content on policy field analysis. If you remember, way back to Module one I had. Your view is really built on the work of 2 scholars.

201

00:45:33.120 --> 00:45:58.299

Thomas O'Toole: Angela Day and Patrick Doble, who do a lot of work on mapping public sector stakeholder environments. Right? So this is the force field of public administration that we'll talk about. Most likely on Wednesday, and it includes, again, a wide range of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. All of which will have some stake in what our organization is doing. Some of these stakeholders will have more influence than others. And some will only be

202

00:45:58.300 --> 00:46:24.840

Thomas O'Toole: animated right around the type of intervention that your organization is pursuing. Right? So the upshot is that this stakeholder environment is complex. It's constantly changing. And it was as a result, environmental scanning right? Getting a good picture of what's going on in your environment from a stakeholder perspective. Is pretty much a constant preoccupation for most of you. If if you pursue public or nonprofit practice. So

203

00:46:24.840 --> 00:46:52.320

Thomas O'Toole: day and doble argue, and I think correctly, that it's really easy for public managers to either become overwhelmed by the shifting forces in their environment or to miss a critical stakeholder or engagement opportunity if they haven't thoughtfully or intentionally map their environment? Right? The question is, what do we include on this map? Even if it's a mental map? Right? So in in systems, thinking, if any of you take it with professors, professors, Cabrera.

204

00:46:52.320 --> 00:47:11.389

Thomas O'Toole: right? You do a lot of mental mapping right? So they're suggesting that you think about a few things. And again, this is something else that you can lay on top of our cases to try and help you sort out what's going on and what are the motivations of the case? Protagonists. Right? So first forces in our environment. Right? These can be either internal or external

205

00:47:11.390 --> 00:47:26.500

Thomas O'Toole: right? And they can either be challenges, opportunities, or threats imposed by specific stakeholders. So you can see this is all kind of if you've done swat analysis before right strengths, weakness, opportunities, threat analysis. You can see kind of setting the table for you right?

206

00:47:26.510 --> 00:47:54.900

Thomas O'Toole: Or they can be imposed by specific stakeholders or by broad political, economic and social forces in society, right? So forces in your environment. That's one thing that you have to map right? Second, who belongs right? In other words, what type of stakeholder are we dealing with? And how do we understand their relative impact on our work? And I'll make the case to you. Align with our discussion of dominant and subordinate groups right the week before last.

207

00:47:54.900 --> 00:48:05.309

Thomas O'Toole: That who belongs isn't simply a matter of power and interest, but equity as well. Right? So it's just something to keep in mind who belongs at the table that never had a seat before. Right?

208

00:48:05.310 --> 00:48:28.859

Thomas O'Toole: The authorizing environment. So what is it that gives our environment the legal the moral or the resource legitimacy to do something. So in a public sector context that might be the Constitution. It might be the legislature, it might be administrative law. In a nonprofit context, we're usually talking about a nonprofit's charter and its board of directors, right staff, partners and contractors.

209

00:48:28.860 --> 00:48:35.889

Thomas O'Toole: those that are internal to the intervention, with some consideration paid to their motivations. Right? And their constraints?

210

00:48:35.900 --> 00:48:57.620

Thomas O'Toole: Relationships and interconnectedness. What is the nature and quality of the interaction between stakeholders and our organization? Right? What's the criteria that they're using to assess your performance? Right? That goes back to the point I raised about thinking about the strategic understanding of identity. What what matters to your stakeholders? Right?

211

00:48:57.620 --> 00:49:06.920

Thomas O'Toole: So I'll talk more about this mapping framework on Wednesday. But it's one way to start thinking about how to pull apart the complexities of some of these cases.

212

00:49:07.310 --> 00:49:36.339

Thomas O'Toole: the other framework that I can talk about is you know. You know. So we've looked at a couple of frameworks in the course. So far, right? We've looked at kettle's 3 elements of accountability. We've looked at organizational DNA. You can think of day and Doble's mapping framework as another means of pulling apart some of these cases, or even understanding some of your own professional experiences. Right? If you think about them in hindsight. Why do we like frameworks and management scholarship and practice well.

213

00:49:36.340 --> 00:49:45.340

Thomas O'Toole: particularly in public management, which involves again, sorting out complex relationships, trying to solve that Whodunnit problem that I've referenced in the past.

214

00:49:45.340 --> 00:50:10.319

Thomas O'Toole: We can rely on frameworks as sort of a rudimentary diagnostic tool, right? To clarify lines of responsibility and therefore accountability, right? As well as decision options. So again, these frameworks can be especially useful in sorting out management cases, which which are not containers of truth, I have to keep reinforcing that and that can actually be told through the lens of unreliable narrator. So these kinds of

215

00:50:10.320 --> 00:50:30.000

Thomas O'Toole: frameworks allow you as an analyst. Someone looking at this case, you know, being sort of like embedded in this case, you know, coming in from the outside to sort out all right. What's going on here? Right? So this is a framework that I talked about in in Module one. It's the more tools framework developed by Jonathan Brock. Right? So when you read a case.

216

00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:55.819

Thomas O'Toole: you know, one of the things you can do is kind of like, you know. If if I were giving you a cheat sheet for the course which I actually do at some at some point towards the end of the course I give you kind of a cheat sheet of all these analytical frameworks. There's also a a review section in one of the modules. Like, all right, everything we've talked about up until this point. Right? But more tools as an acronym. That, you know, will encounter throughout the course. You know it stands for mission and purpose, objectives of the manager

217

00:50:55.820 --> 00:51:20.499

Thomas O'Toole: risks and problems, external and internal actors, tools and constraints, opportunities, outcomes and elements of a potential solution, legacy and strategy and action plan. Right? So mission right? The mission of an organization essentially tells a story about the organization's central purpose. Right? You know, the mission is usually informed by the organization's authorizing legislation. In the case of a nonprofit organization, it's charter right?

218

00:51:20.500 --> 00:51:36.670

Thomas O'Toole: we've already discussed a few significant problems in understanding the mission of organizations. Right? First, there might be a great deal of disagreement among stakeholders as to internal stakeholders, as well as to what the mission of the organization actually is.

219

00:51:36.670 --> 00:51:53.399

Thomas O'Toole: Second delivery of public services might involve collaboration across both mission and profit driven organizations. And there can also be a disconnect between an organization's mission and how that mission is interpreted and implemented at the street level, right or the point of service.

220

00:51:53.400 --> 00:52:15.630

Thomas O'Toole: Objectives of the manager. So think about when you're reading these cases, the short and long term objectives of the case protagonists right? Or that confront you as a manager. Right? What type of problem are you dealing with? Is it a problem that's been confronted in the past? Is it a unique problem requiring a unique solution. What are the short and long term priorities? So, for example, in the early stages of the pandemic

221

00:52:15.630 --> 00:52:36.730

Thomas O'Toole: New York State was focused largely on ensuring that there were enough ventilators, icu beds for critical patients, that with the short term objective right the long term objective was securing new supply chains. So that the scarcity of of the State, the State initially encountered wouldn't hinder its response to future epidemics or pandemics. Right?

222

00:52:36.730 --> 00:53:00.299

Thomas O'Toole: Risks and problems. So public administration is a field that's rife, and you might be getting this sense now, with no win scenarios. Right? Sorry. Every decision. Option usually presents kind of a multitude of risks and potential problems. Some of those risks are very serious. Right? Including potentially the loss of life. That's again why I start out

223

00:53:00.300 --> 00:53:30.209

Thomas O'Toole: the course with the death of Marcella peers to reinforce that some of the decisions that you might make as public managers, might re actually risk life right? And others are nominal. So like temporary, disrupting working relationships, right, external and internal actors. Who are the key players or the stakeholders surrounding a decision? Option? Again, what is their relative weight? How are? How can they influence a decision? Option? How does that understanding affect how you or the case protagonists will manage the organization's relationship?

224

00:53:30.250 --> 00:53:40.710

Thomas O'Toole: The tools and constraints. There are a number of formal constraints on the work of public administrators. A lot of those constraints have been put in place to ensure accountability.

225

00:53:40.710 --> 00:54:08.140

Thomas O'Toole: There are also a number of informal tools at the disposal of a public administrator. Right? So, for example, civil service regulations often require an extensive process of review and arbitration before personnel are terminated right? So there's that formal process that's in place. Right? But there are also informal tools. Right? Not all tools and constraints are formal. So you know, having that informal chat at Starbucks, right with an employee to hash out problems

226

00:54:08.170 --> 00:54:33.320

Thomas O'Toole: can often lead to a satisfactory resolution. Right? Especially if there's a case where you don't necessarily want to document all concerns that you have against an employee, right? Because the documentation standards of, you know, discipline in the public sector can be quite high as well right, and the trick is to find that balance between formal and informal tools. So you know if I'm asking you to look at a case, I might ask you, okay, what are the formal and informal tools

227

00:54:33.320 --> 00:54:38.589

Thomas O'Toole: that are available to resolve the scenario, or to resolve whatever challenge that you're seeing in the case. Right?

228

00:54:38.590 --> 00:54:59.480

Thomas O'Toole: Opportunities. Every dilemma also presents an opportunity for the organization. Whether that means, you know, an improvement in service delivery. Creating a sense of urgency among stakeholders forming new relationships. There's always an opportunity there. One of the things that I'll reinforce to you again when we talk about swot analysis is that not every opportunity is positive.

229

00:54:59.570 --> 00:55:03.929

Thomas O'Toole: right? Most public administration students are idealist. So they're only looking at

230

00:55:03.960 --> 00:55:30.000

Thomas O'Toole: positives in their environment. Something that happens in the environment that's catastrophic can also be an opportunity that you can seize on to effect change. So if there's a shift in public opinion, right? As a result of a catastrophe, that's an opportunity that you can seize on right? So just keep that in mind, outcomes and elements of a stable solution. What's the bare minimum that needs to happen in order to resolve? The challenge that you're seeing in the case

231

00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:44.830

Thomas O'Toole: legacy. Given the turnover again, that's very common in public agencies, particularly at the senior executive or political appointee levels. Legacy is an important concern. Right? The same logic applies across executive transitions. Right? So

232

00:55:44.830 --> 00:56:09.600

Thomas O'Toole: so here, what they're getting at is what are the implications of decisions that will at last our tenure as managers. Right? That will impact the organization's success in the future. Right? And then finally, strategy and action plan. So a strategy is essentially a plan, a pattern of choices. That includes a prioritization of action steps. That takes into account formal and informal tools and constraints. So we're looking again for a pattern

233

00:56:09.600 --> 00:56:36.229

Thomas O'Toole: pattern of behavior, right? Not individual choices, not tactics, strategy. We're looking at an overarching pattern of behavior, sort of a a coalescing pattern of behavior right? And a lot of the cases that we'll look at throughout the course. It's clear that the protagonist in the case has an objective, and they might have an understanding how to achieve that objective from a tactical perspective. But they don't have an understanding of how to how that fits into the overall strategy of the organization. Right?

234

00:56:36.250 --> 00:57:02.109

Thomas O'Toole: So again, policy, field analysis, mapping more tools, these are all frameworks. And again, these are part of your tool, Kit. Right? You don't have to. If I give you a discussion board or give you a directed memo. Assign. You don't have to shoehorn all these things into your analysis. These are tools that you can choose, depending on the scenario. Whichever makes sense for analyzing the scenario that you're looking at. Right? It tells us sort of about the why, what's going on in our environment?

235

00:57:02.610 --> 00:57:15.740

Thomas O'Toole: Alright. So let's look at this this case on building a dialogue around race to change political institutions. The city of Seattle starts the race and social justice initiative. So what was this case about. Where are we at the beginning of the case?

236

00:57:20.280 --> 00:57:23.039

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, where are we? Is answered right in the title of the case.

237

00:57:24.760 --> 00:57:43.179

Thomas O'Toole: We're in Seattle. Right? So the take case takes place in Seattle. The case is framed around the legacy of redlining in Seattle, right as a really overt kind of in your face example of administrative racism. Have you ever heard this term redlining, or this practice of redlining? What is redlining

238

00:57:44.680 --> 00:57:50.819

Thomas O'Toole: areas that they believe for less desirable.

239

00:57:50.920 --> 00:57:57.959

Thomas O'Toole: segregated them all from the entire warden. The ethnicity that they we better deserve those properties for access.

240

00:57:59.660 --> 00:58:29.380

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. So redlining as a practice has a has roots in what the case refers to as covenant laws, right? Which were laws that were mostly enacted by neighborhood associations that sought to prohibit minorities from buying, leasing or renting property right? Redlining was also informed by Banks, by real estate agents, hospitals that either refuse service to minorities, or that charge minorities higher fees for service than whites. Right? So Seattle.

241

00:58:29.380 --> 00:58:57.200

Thomas O'Toole: Now, Seattle, despite its reputation, or or the our perception of it as a progressive city. Like most municipalities in the United States, has a deeply rooted history of administrative evil and racism. Right? In fact, at 1 point the case suggests that this perception of this reputation of Seattle as a progressive city was actually a hindrance to some of the work that they were trying to do in the case? Right? Why did the case author make that point like, what were they? What were they getting at?

242

00:59:00.060 --> 00:59:02.190

Thomas O'Toole: Why did they say that was actually a hindrance.

243

00:59:05.300 --> 00:59:14.779

Thomas O'Toole: So they say it. It can ought to be the case that progresses. You know those who think that they're kind of fighting the good fight right? Or who are allies, are the most defensive

244

00:59:14.780 --> 00:59:37.689

Thomas O'Toole: when challenged to acknowledge their privilege. Right? So there's a reaction right? The author also mentions this idea of Seattle. Nice quote, unquote Seattle. Nice? Right? That Seattle lights are known for being congenial to each other until a racially motivated incident occurred. And then it's kind of knives out right? That cognitive dissonance right can be particularly challenging when you're trying to undo something that's

245

00:59:37.690 --> 00:59:44.880

Thomas O'Toole: as pervasive right in both explicit and implicit ways as systemic racism. So who were the key stakeholders in the case?

246

00:59:46.160 --> 01:00:08.649

Thomas O'Toole: This gets you into thinking about like who who are the key stakeholders right in the environment. So you know, who are, you know the the the external and internal actors from a more tools perspective that you know we're thinking, might have an influence on the outcome of the case or the the success of the intervention that they're trying to put in place in the in the case. Right?

247

01:00:08.650 --> 01:00:16.769

Thomas O'Toole: So, who are the key stakeholders? Yeah. So there was a Mickey Byrne who was a member of basically

248

01:00:17.360 --> 01:00:27.829

Thomas O'Toole: it was so he was nominated to be the chair of the Race and Social Justice Initiative. But before that he worked for the City Council, I believe.

249

01:00:28.300 --> 01:00:33.029

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. And so he worked in that position as the first of that new kind of department.

250

01:00:33.190 --> 01:00:55.980

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. And it's a shame that the case isn't good to go into Fern's background. There, there's a really great book. That I've I've picked up trailblazing African American public administrators, and it sort of goes into infern is one of the subjects of the book. It goes into kind of the unsung black heroes of public administration in the Us. But Fern actually had a 50 year career in public service. Not in this undoing racism space.

251

01:00:55.980 --> 01:01:06.619

Thomas O'Toole: But in parks and recreation management. Right? And he mentions at some point in the case he's like, Hey, I'm new to this right? I haven't done this work before. Right? That was the space that he worked on in California.

252

01:01:06.620 --> 01:01:25.820

Thomas O'Toole: Before moving to Washington. He did some community outreach and education work for the Mayor of Oakland, which likely built up a lot of the skill set that he was using in this case. But his background was actually in parks and recreation and not in undoing racism. So Fern is one key stakeholder. Right? Who else?

253

01:01:26.770 --> 01:01:27.940

Thomas O'Toole: I?

254

01:01:28.430 --> 01:01:40.660

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. Go ahead. The office of school rights. Ocr, yeah. Ocr, right? So what was their? What was their responsibility in all this. Well, they had, you know, the as a stakeholder in it to

255

01:01:41.040 --> 01:01:44.299

Thomas O'Toole: it, like moves along the actions of the case.

256

01:01:44.330 --> 01:01:49.130

Thomas O'Toole: and that they had the director of it, and her name was

257

01:01:49.230 --> 01:01:53.999

Thomas O'Toole: Jeremy Covington. Yeah. And she was also an African-american woman.

258

01:01:54.140 --> 01:02:13.019

Thomas O'Toole:? yeah. And so from an organizational DNA, DNA perspective. How did the role of Ocr evolve over the course of the case to kind of like, you know? Make sure that from a structure and decision, rights perspective. Everything was aligned to actually execute the race and social justice initiative in the way it should be executed.

259

01:02:17.580 --> 01:02:18.370

Thomas O'Toole: Help them?

260

01:02:19.190 --> 01:02:47.350

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, right? What about Greg Nichols. Nobody mentioned sort of the

261

01:02:47.410 --> 01:02:50.050

Thomas O'Toole: the the mayor that started all this right? Yeah.

262

01:02:50.120 --> 01:03:02.099

Thomas O'Toole: yeah, I think.

263

01:03:02.310 --> 01:03:04.109

Thomas O'Toole: And instead of like.

264

01:03:04.280 --> 01:03:08.280

Thomas O'Toole:? got the

265

01:03:08.380 --> 01:03:13.160

Thomas O'Toole: Well, not his experiences.

266

01:03:13.610 --> 01:03:39.239

Thomas O'Toole: It was sort of like his. Is this his sort of O awareness? Right? So so you know, first. So we have Greg Nichols right? Greg Nicol serves as Mayor of Seattle from 2,002 to 2,010 right? And you know, when you first get into this case, or at least, me personally thought this was, gonna be kind of a white savior story. Right? You you sort of. But then, yeah, provide some context for this push of his to develop the Rsji, and then the case kind of moves on.

267

01:03:39.240 --> 01:03:46.820

Thomas O'Toole: So what does Nichols want to do at the outside of the case he has kind of like this absurd Eureka moment.

268

01:03:47.210 --> 01:03:49.770

Thomas O'Toole: Right? Yeah.

269

01:03:50.260 --> 01:04:01.340

Thomas O'Toole: If you wanted to initiate the initiative, and his own experience is growing up remote, like racial racial justice and quality kind of base

270

01:04:01.580 --> 01:04:07.429

Thomas O'Toole: big chunk of his campaign on was this new initiative actually came up with, Stay home

271

01:04:08.510 --> 01:04:15.740

Thomas O'Toole: sort of a trick question. So I feel like I'm giving you a lot of trick questions. It's a trick question. He doesn't really know what he wants to do

272

01:04:16.270 --> 01:04:20.939

Thomas O'Toole: right? If you take a step back and think about it at the outside of the case, he has no clue what to do.

273

01:04:21.120 --> 01:04:43.650

Thomas O'Toole: Because he's suddenly awakened to this problem of systemic risk. So it's not, you know you, you you keep harping on like his. It's not his experience right? He suddenly awakened to the problem of systemic racism in Seattle after the killing of Aaron Roberts, who was an African American during an encounter with law enforcement. Then, when he's on the campaign trail. He's in his late forties right?

274

01:04:43.650 --> 01:04:52.400

Thomas O'Toole: It begins to dawn on him again in his late 40 s. That the experience and perception of race and racism that he has is very different

275

01:04:52.450 --> 01:04:57.999

Thomas O'Toole: from those of of African Americans. So he wants to do something about it. But he doesn't really have a strategy

276

01:04:58.310 --> 01:05:26.079

Thomas O'Toole: right? He doesn't know what he wants to do. So he essentially announces a goal of ending racism in city government. Right? And then he tasks a a an administrator, Mickey firm. With implementing a strategy to achieve that goal. So he so he sort of tasked firm with developing this pattern of choices right to that will ultimately be articulated by the race and social justice initiative to end racism in city government. Right now, that's a tall order.

277

01:05:26.670 --> 01:05:41.969

Thomas O'Toole: right? That's a tall order ending racism in city government, right? And Nichols finds this very finds this out very quickly, and so does Fern. Right? So Fern is asked by Nichols to lead this race and social justice initiative under 2 conditions. Anyone remember what they were.

278

01:05:43.580 --> 01:05:49.340

Thomas O'Toole: So first, he didn't want to waste time convincing people that racism was real right?

279

01:05:49.370 --> 01:06:14.560

Thomas O'Toole: And second, you know, he, he wanted to make sure that structure and decision rights around this initiative were aligned with the mission and values of the the the the Rsji itself. Right? So then there's Jermaine Covington, right? Jermaine Covington was director of the city's office of civil rights. This is where Ocr comes in which at the time had been sponsoring a series of dialogues on race with cities. City staff called

280

01:06:14.560 --> 01:06:22.120

Thomas O'Toole: City talks right? So a firm meets with the consultants who are implementing these city talks programs and realizes that

281

01:06:22.120 --> 01:06:39.769

Thomas O'Toole: while these talks I'm trying to serve serve the purpose of, you know, enhancing workplace diversity, cultural confidence that really didn't get at the heart of the matter. Which was the systemic problem of racism. That affected the city's work. So what was the first step Fern took?

282

01:06:43.230 --> 01:06:56.610

Thomas O'Toole: And again, when we, when we discuss the steps that he took throughout this case, and the steps that Jermaine Covington took throughout this case. I want you to think about this against kind of how are they? But they were mapping their environment

283

01:06:56.860 --> 01:07:02.200

Thomas O'Toole: and how they were following kind of the more tools framework in what they did right?

284

01:07:02.590 --> 01:07:15.560

Thomas O'Toole: The test is cumulative. So you gotta you gotta think about this through the frameworks that we discussed in class, right? So the first step he took was right.

285

01:07:15.970 --> 01:07:29.889

Thomas O'Toole: it's next, okay. So yeah, he met with many of the departments in the city, and spoke with their leaders and people, working departments about what they felt was affecting their administration, not just within the city.

286

01:07:29.910 --> 01:07:36.640

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So so, thinking about this idea of external and internal actors, right? The first step he took was to broaden the dialogue.

287

01:07:36.710 --> 01:07:59.269

Thomas O'Toole: Okay? So he recognized that historically, minorities have been pretty much shut out of a lot of the advisory committees. The city used to inform their work. So he convenes this working group of leaders of organizations representing people of color to help advise the city on how the Rsj should move forward. So it's not just internal actors he's looking externally as well. Right?

288

01:07:59.270 --> 01:08:24.210

Thomas O'Toole: The second step he took was actually something that could be done in the short term. So one of the things that you know he's doing to build momentum is generating short term wins and that's something that as a public administrator, you always have to do cause as we've discussed before, elected officials are always looking at short term wins, and that's how you kind of sustain the momentum for your work. Right? But remember, the more systemic issues would take time to address.

289

01:08:24.210 --> 01:08:42.450

Thomas O'Toole: You know we raised that in the discussion last week on that that case that I previewed for you on U.S.A. And Rwanda that distinction between humanitarian development aid. Why would there be this this emphasis on humanitarian versus development aid because elected officials need to be short, need to see short term wins right. That's the unfortunate reality.

290

01:08:42.450 --> 01:08:45.709

Thomas O'Toole: So he looks at kind of the nuts and bolts of what departments are doing

291

01:08:45.880 --> 01:08:59.569

Thomas O'Toole: right. And he finds that Seattle public utilities had revamped its contracting and procurement processes to think about how to prioritize minority. And women owned businesses in contracting right? Because historically, 95%

292

01:08:59.569 --> 01:09:16.069

Thomas O'Toole: of government contracts were going to white owned businesses. Okay? But to really operationalize the work of Rsji. There was a a decision made to move the initiative under the office of civil rights. So here's where we're thinking about organizational DNA

293

01:09:16.100 --> 01:09:18.890

Thomas O'Toole: right thinking about how to restructure.

294

01:09:18.910 --> 01:09:43.259

Thomas O'Toole: You know, oversight of Rsji in a way that align with the objectives of the program right? Which meant, now, Rsji had the staffing and the expertise right with the capacity to actually do something about this right to do some of the things Firm wanted to do so. Now Jermaine Covington and and Mickey Fern are working together right? And what was the approach they came up with? They called this disease strategy.

295

01:09:44.319 --> 01:10:12.050

Thomas O'Toole: So if you look at page 6 of the case, they essentially developed a framework that would align relationships and hold stakeholders accountable. Right? So this is where it comes in, where you think about mapping not only your external and internal actors, but you understand your opportunities right? That's where that's what we're going towards right thinking about, how do we assess what our stakeholders want? And how do we assess the relative impact that they can have over what we're trying to do right.

296

01:10:12.170 --> 01:10:42.419

Thomas O'Toole:? So 2 of Kettle's 3 prongs of public administration are demonstrated here in the in the early stages of Copington and Fern's work, right politics in terms of relationship management. Okay, and accountability, right? Ensuring personnel are responsive. To meeting the goals of Rsj, and so first, you know, to try to build, buy in from the top down. Mayor, Nichols suggests. Here we go. An anti racism training for executive staff. Now we get to that right? And what happens?

297

01:10:45.400 --> 01:10:48.200

Thomas O'Toole: It's a disaster right? Why is it a disaster?

298

01:10:49.260 --> 01:11:02.900

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, he kind of goes with the fact that didn't have a button, and that people also just like were really like wouldn't know why they were there. They felt like threatened

299

01:11:03.100 --> 01:11:22.659

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. And we actually talked about this when we talked about, you know, identity and and thinking about how, how do you actually do this kind of work in practice? And someone raised the point that it's really critical that you get facilitators that know how to how to sort of manage these kinds of dialogues right? Because, again, if you think back to the session we had on identity.

300

01:11:22.660 --> 01:11:37.019

Thomas O'Toole: you know, I mentioned my wife's experience with anti racism trainings. Right? So if if they're not facilitated in a really thoughtful way. They can actually serve to permanently damage workplace relationships. But they tried again. Right? With a different consultant.

301

01:11:37.020 --> 01:11:53.899

Thomas O'Toole: The dialog was more productive this time. Again, you know, the point of these trainings is to affect long term systemic change. It's hard. It's not something anyone realistically believes will change hearts and minds overnight. Right? If that's the promise, then it's likely just performative, right?

302

01:11:54.130 --> 01:12:07.649

Thomas O'Toole: And speaking of performative, you know, while we've talked about politics and accountability. We haven't yet talked about performance. Right? One of the biggest challenges with doing this kind of work is measuring progress.

303

01:12:07.880 --> 01:12:24.030

Thomas O'Toole: right performance and accountability are obviously linked. But we haven't talked about performance yet. You can hold a department accountable if you haven't established some kind of benchmark for success. Right? So how did firms suggest holding departments accountable for complying with Rsji goals?

304

01:12:26.510 --> 01:12:27.830

Thomas O'Toole: It's actually kind of interesting.

305

01:12:31.160 --> 01:12:54.650

Thomas O'Toole: So a lot of Fern's early work in this area was kind of it was kind of like hit or miss. Right? You had departments who were essentially tokenizing their commitment to Rsji. Right? And you find this a lot, there'll be a piece of legislation. There'll be a public law pass and it'll actually take additional effort to ensure implementation. Right? So Mayor Nichols works with fern to establish what they called an accountability agreement.

306

01:12:54.650 --> 01:13:04.149

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So the analogy here is an environment like sort of like an environmental impact statement. If you know what that is right? An environmental impact statement is

307

01:13:04.150 --> 01:13:25.079

Thomas O'Toole: a statement that anyone developing a land use project has to complete that assesses the overall environmental impact of the project right? And the case specifically mentions the environmental impact statement as the basis for the Rsji accountability agreement? Right? So what was specified in in the accountability agreement? What did it ask departments to document? And, by the way.

308

01:13:25.080 --> 01:13:42.929

Thomas O'Toole: when we think about something like the accountability agreement. We're thinking about tools and constraints right? Because now we have these accountability agreements that are actually formal tools, right? That we can use to sort of think about our decision options and the progress of the work that we're doing? Okay? So what was the what would these accountability agreements about

309

01:13:46.880 --> 01:13:47.700

Thomas O'Toole: yeah.

310

01:13:49.590 --> 01:13:54.640

Thomas O'Toole: capability to create, you know, specific number of

311

01:13:55.130 --> 01:13:56.960

Thomas O'Toole: metrics that

312

01:13:57.530 --> 01:14:04.920

Thomas O'Toole: they committed to actually accurately gauge and probably adjusted the waste grades back and forth and dialogue.

313

01:14:13.730 --> 01:14:37.469

Thomas O'Toole: So now you're gonna walk the walk right? So now you know, it asks them to document specific activities and develop performance metrics right for meeting Rsji goals. Okay? Not in a performative way, but in a way that would be meaningful and auditable. Right? So there's that accountability that we're looking for right. They also establish a requirement that each department submit work plans documenting their progress towards Rsji goals. Right?

314

01:14:37.470 --> 01:14:41.890

Thomas O'Toole: And those work plans had to address a couple different areas, workplace equity.

315

01:14:41.890 --> 01:15:02.079

Thomas O'Toole: right? So they wanted to look at improving the diversity of the workforce at all levels across functions, ensuring equity and hiring and promotion, economic equity so changing, purchasing, and contracting practices to increase participation by people of color, immigrant and refugee services, right? So improving access to services for immigrant and refugee communities.

316

01:15:02.080 --> 01:15:19.019

Thomas O'Toole: Public engagement, right improving access and influence of communities of color capacity, building, increasing the knowledge and tools used by city staff to achieve race and social justice. So this is what they wanted. These are kind of the the broad objectives that they wanted them to establish.

317

01:15:19.020 --> 01:15:37.369

Thomas O'Toole: You know, actionable goals, specific activities, performance metrics around. They even incorporated progress around Rsji goals into the annual performance evaluations of department directors. So not only are they holding departments accountable as a whole.

318

01:15:37.430 --> 01:15:51.489

Thomas O'Toole: For actually walking the walk on Rsji objectives. They're holding department heads individually accountable for making sure that their departments were moving any illness. Right? So sometimes you need the carrot. Sometimes you need to stick right?

319

01:15:51.760 --> 01:16:20.960

Thomas O'Toole: Alright, so I'll I'll leave you with 2 sort of 2 questions right? You know, as you think about this case. Right? So first, how did Covington and Ferns work? Acknowledge kettle's 3 characteristics of the administrative process, right? So politics accountability performance, right? And I think that we flesh that out pretty clearly. But if you were gonna include this, or if you're gonna analyze this case in in a directive memo assignment that would be helpful to think about intent.

320

01:16:21.240 --> 01:16:47.600

Thomas O'Toole: And then how did Covington and Fern kind of think about organizational DNA, right? Decision, right structure, information motivators around Seattle city government right to move Rsj forward. Right? And so I hope through this case and through you know the Marcella Pierce case. You can see, you know, a couple of of things right? So that first, the connection between politics and administration. Alright

321

01:16:47.600 --> 01:17:17.310

Thomas O'Toole: connecting to the the reading that we had to do by Wilson right? So in this case there was a clear connection between. An elected official, Nichols, right? And public administrators Covington and Fern. Right? In other cases there might not be that connection. In fact. You know, we'll look at a case later on in the course where a mayor establishes a goal that is impossible. For public administrators to meet right, and we'll have to think about. You know what's the fallout of that disconnect between politics and administration?

322

01:17:17.310 --> 01:17:24.420

Thomas O'Toole: Right? What's the consequence? But here the linkage between politics and administration, I think, is very clear, right? It's very. It's very over.

323

01:17:24.490 --> 01:17:37.620

Thomas O'Toole: You know. Covington and Fern are not cogs in the machine, right? They're proactive. They're constructive both in policy, formulation and implementation. They recognize the opportunity that they had right.

324

01:17:37.970 --> 01:18:03.749

Thomas O'Toole: they knew that to maintain political support, right? They'd have to develop performance measures that would demonstrate quick wins for Nickel's constituents. They move that chess piece forward. At the same time they were doing the more difficult work of undoing racism through structured dialogue with personnel and second thinking back to kind of these, this distinction that Navachi, Gurdell, and Pepper make

325

01:18:03.750 --> 01:18:23.120

Thomas O'Toole: between a bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Covington and Fern clearly demonstrated a democratic ethos. In this case right? Other administrators might have let departments get away with the kind of performic you know, cosmetic, tokenized quote, unquote success. Right? Departments were initially trying to get away with.

326

01:18:23.120 --> 01:18:46.130

Thomas O'Toole: but understanding that they were at a very real crossroads and dealing with the legacy of races in Seattle. They really seized the opportunity right, and served as arbiters of political tension in the vein of what Nabachi and Godel and Pepper have in mind. Right they were executing that obli obligation of educating and empowering right, not just internally, but externally. Alright.

327

01:18:46.230 --> 01:19:06.590

Thomas O'Toole: Okay, that's all for today. Again, any questions on your your directed memo assignment. Let me know. I'm up pretty late, so feel free to shoot me an email. On Wednesday we'll get more into thinking about organizational structure and stakeholder mapping and engagement. And we'll cover the the first. Yeah. The first 2 international cases.

328

01:19:06.630 --> 01:19:15.299

Thomas O'Toole: In the course. Right? It was, what are the cases from south? Is it South Korea and China? Right? Yeah. So we're gonna go abroad on Wednesday.

?著作權(quán)歸作者所有,轉(zhuǎn)載或內(nèi)容合作請(qǐng)聯(lián)系作者

人面猴
序言：七十年代末召庞，一起剝皮案震驚了整個(gè)濱河市糠睡，隨后出現(xiàn)的幾起案子隘世，更是在濱河造成了極大的恐慌，老刑警劉巖，帶你破解...
沈念sama閱讀 217,277評(píng)論 6贊 503
死咒
序言：濱河連續(xù)發(fā)生了三起死亡事件英融，死亡現(xiàn)場(chǎng)離奇詭異癣防，居然都是意外死亡，警方通過(guò)查閱死者的電腦和手機(jī)睹簇，發(fā)現(xiàn)死者居然都...
沈念sama閱讀 92,689評(píng)論 3贊 393
救了他兩次的神仙讓他今天三更去死
文/潘曉璐我一進(jìn)店門(mén)奏赘，熙熙樓的掌柜王于貴愁眉苦臉地迎上來(lái)，“玉大人太惠，你說(shuō)我怎么就攤上這事磨淌。” “怎么了凿渊？”我有些...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 163,624評(píng)論 0贊 353
道士緝兇錄：失蹤的賣(mài)姜人
文/不壞的土叔我叫張陵伦糯，是天一觀的道長(zhǎng)。經(jīng)常有香客問(wèn)我嗽元，道長(zhǎng)敛纲，這世上最難降的妖魔是什么？我笑而不...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 58,356評(píng)論 1贊 293
?港島之戀（遺憾婚禮）
正文為了忘掉前任剂癌，我火速辦了婚禮淤翔，結(jié)果婚禮上，老公的妹妹穿的比我還像新娘佩谷。我一直安慰自己旁壮，他們只是感情好，可當(dāng)我...
茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 67,402評(píng)論 6贊 392
惡毒庶女頂嫁案：這布局不是一般人想出來(lái)的
文/花漫我一把揭開(kāi)白布谐檀。她就那樣靜靜地躺著抡谐，像睡著了一般。火紅的嫁衣襯著肌膚如雪桐猬。梳的紋絲不亂的頭發(fā)上麦撵，一...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 51,292評(píng)論 1贊 301
城市分裂傳說(shuō)
那天，我揣著相機(jī)與錄音，去河邊找鬼免胃。笑死音五，一個(gè)胖子當(dāng)著我的面吹牛，可吹牛的內(nèi)容都是我干的羔沙。我是一名探鬼主播躺涝，決...
沈念sama閱讀 40,135評(píng)論 3贊 418
雙鴛鴦連環(huán)套：你想象不到人心有多黑
文/蒼蘭香墨我猛地睜開(kāi)眼，長(zhǎng)吁一口氣：“原來(lái)是場(chǎng)噩夢(mèng)啊……” “哼扼雏！你這毒婦竟也來(lái)了坚嗜？” 一聲冷哼從身側(cè)響起，我...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 38,992評(píng)論 0贊 275
萬(wàn)榮殺人案實(shí)錄
序言：老撾萬(wàn)榮一對(duì)情侶失蹤诗充，失蹤者是張志新（化名）和其女友劉穎惶傻，沒(méi)想到半個(gè)月后，有當(dāng)?shù)厝嗽跇?shù)林里發(fā)現(xiàn)了一具尸體其障，經(jīng)...
沈念sama閱讀 45,429評(píng)論 1贊 314
?護(hù)林員之死
正文獨(dú)居荒郊野嶺守林人離奇死亡银室，尸身上長(zhǎng)有42處帶血的膿包…… 初始之章·張勛以下內(nèi)容為張勛視角年9月15日...
茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 37,636評(píng)論 3贊 334
?白月光啟示錄
正文我和宋清朗相戀三年，在試婚紗的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被綠了励翼。大學(xué)時(shí)的朋友給我發(fā)了我未婚夫和他白月光在一起吃飯的照片蜈敢。...
茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 39,785評(píng)論 1贊 348
活死人
序言：一個(gè)原本活蹦亂跳的男人離奇死亡，死狀恐怖汽抚，靈堂內(nèi)的尸體忽然破棺而出抓狭，到底是詐尸還是另有隱情，我是刑警寧澤造烁，帶...
沈念sama閱讀 35,492評(píng)論 5贊 345
?日本核電站爆炸內(nèi)幕
正文年R本政府宣布否过，位于F島的核電站，受9級(jí)特大地震影響惭蟋，放射性物質(zhì)發(fā)生泄漏苗桂。R本人自食惡果不足惜，卻給世界環(huán)境...
茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 41,092評(píng)論 3贊 328
男人毒藥：我在死后第九天來(lái)索命
文/蒙蒙一告组、第九天我趴在偏房一處隱蔽的房頂上張望煤伟。院中可真熱鬧，春花似錦木缝、人聲如沸便锨。這莊子的主人今日做“春日...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 31,723評(píng)論 0贊 22
一樁弒父案我碟，背后竟有這般陰謀
文/蒼蘭香墨我抬頭看了看天上的太陽(yáng)放案。三九已至，卻和暖如春矫俺，著一層夾襖步出監(jiān)牢的瞬間吱殉，已是汗流浹背掸冤。一陣腳步聲響...
開(kāi)封第一講書(shū)人閱讀 32,858評(píng)論 1贊 269
情欲美人皮
我被黑心中介騙來(lái)泰國(guó)打工，沒(méi)想到剛下飛機(jī)就差點(diǎn)兒被人妖公主榨干…… 1. 我叫王不留考婴，地道東北人贩虾。一個(gè)月前我還...
沈念sama閱讀 47,891評(píng)論 2贊 370
代替公主和親
正文我出身青樓催烘，卻偏偏與公主長(zhǎng)得像沥阱，于是被迫代替她去往敵國(guó)和親。傳聞我的和親對(duì)象是個(gè)殘疾皇子伊群，可洞房花燭夜當(dāng)晚...
茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 44,713評(píng)論 2贊 354

class 4-1 PA

推薦閱讀更多精彩內(nèi)容