Leading for Accountability

Kevin P. Kearns, Ph.D.Local Government AcademyOctober 11, 2007

Pessimistic View of the Local Government Environment: Stormy Forecast?

Competition with each other, with nonprofits and even with for-profit firms

Race for professional talent Special threats to small

municipalities: Lack critical mass and organizational capacity

Scandals involving malfeasance and nonfeasance: Erosion of public trust

Strategist’s (Optimist’s) View: We Control Our Own Fate

Public trust is our most important strategic asset

Behind each threat is a potential opportunity

Opportunities come to those who “invest” in public trust, not to those who merely “react” to ethical controversies or accountability crises

Elected officials play a unique role as liaison between the organization and the public(s) it serves

Some Key Areas of Concern Regarding Accountability

Personal financial gain from public decisions / contracts

Ownership interests and financial disclosures Use of public property / employees for personal

purposes Acceptance of gifts, including from charities Proper oversight by the board of professional staff Program effectiveness and responsiveness

Outcomes versus outputs Financial management

Accurate Fund Accounting Abuse of position

Types of Ethical Dilemmas Commonly Faced by Local Government Officials

Personal Cost: When doing the right thing will incur costs (political or otherwise) to you personally or to the organization Moral Courage Dilemmas

Right versus Right Dilemmas: When there is a conflict between to apparently right sets of values

Discussion

What are the accountability challenges / controversies facing your community?

How is your local government responding? With what results? What has been YOUR role as a elected

official in interpreting and communicating public expectations to municipal employees?

Impacts

Loss of public confidence Erosion of citizen support Increased scrutiny and oversight Low morale among staff and

volunteers Distraction from mission - damage

control consumes energy and resources

Context of Scandals

Organizational complexity: more difficult for volunteer (or part-time) elected officials to understand the complexities of local government operations

Court of popular opinion: Media scrutiny and “talk show” politics (public and nonprofits).

Competition for competent leaders: Pay and perks become an issue (public and nonprofits)

Increased entrepreneurial activities: Local governments (and nonprofits) behaving more like businesses and looking for opportunities to diversify income

Autonomy versus Bureaucracy: Rapid response to competitive pressures requires administrative autonomy, but representative democracy sometimes requires bureaucratic control

Some Definitions of Accountability

The extent to which one must answer (“account”) to a higher authority - legal or organizational - for one’s actions

The extent to which one anticipates and responds to the needs of stakeholders

County Health Department

Classic Case: Specific claims of wrong-doing Clear chain of authority: county and

state health departments Controller’s audit is relatively precise

mechanism Relatively explicit performance criteria The “trust” contract is explicit:

certificates in restaurants

Mental Health Center

Ambiguous Case: Wide-ranging and not clearly substantiated

claims of “wrong-doing” No clear chain of authority - absence of

rigorous oversight Catalyst was an emotionally charged event

(murder), not a dry technical audit Most severe critics of the agency are not

overseers but sister agencies Nature of the “trust” relationship is

ambiguous

A Strategic Approach to Accountability

Accountability is a dynamic concept, not static

The accountability environment contains both explicit and implicit expectations of how the organization should behave

Organizations can respond to these expectations with either tactical or strategic actions

Accountability Matrix

Explicit Standard of Performance

Implicit Standard of Performance

Tactical Response from the Agency

Legal Accountability (compliance)

Negotiated Accountability (responsive)

Strategic Response from the Agency

Anticipatory Accountability (advocacy)

Discretionary Accountability (judgement)

A Few Examples of Each Type of Accountability

Compliance Accountability: Whistleblower protection, Reporting of gifts, Proper use of intergovernmental grant or transfer, contract administration, nondiscrimination

Negotiated Accountability: Red Cross and Johnson and Johnson; Mexico State University and donor anonymity; Charity gifts, City of Pittsburgh (PILOT)

Discretionary Accountability: Adherence to best practices; Implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley guidelines for board governance

Advocacy Accountability: Robert Citron and Orange County Bankruptcy

Some Accountability Tools

Mission and Values Statement, including evidence that your organization periodically assesses progress on the mission

Conflict of interest statements and enforcement mechanisms

Human resource and personnel policies governing hiring, job descriptions, work conditions, salaries and promotion criteria, and performance evaluation.

Accountability Tools (cont.)

Financial policies and reports, including budget, independent audits, internal financial controls, investment policies

Whistleblower protections Public communication and transparency

tools such as annual reports Independent, and credible, ethics

commissions

Discussion Questions

How has the “accountability environment” of local government changed in the last five years?

How will it likely change in the next five years?

What are your local government’s strengths and potential weaknesses with respect to the dynamics of the accountability environment?

The Unique Perspectives / Skills of Elected Officials

Uniquely positioned to be liaison between the organization and the public(s) it serves

Unique perspective (systemic) on the organization and its various parts

Uniquely skilled as “listeners” as well as “communicators”

Potentially more “objective” than other organizational members

A Checklist of Moral Principles (Prof. Peter Madsen, Carnegie Mellon Univ.)

What responsibilities (duties) need to be fulfilled? Have any gone unfulfilled?

What consequences might be predicted as the result of a given action? Are these harmful or beneficial?

Are there situational variables or contingencies that should be considered?

Whose values need to be considered in the decision? Individual? Organizational? Societal? Cultural? Spiritual? All?

Greatest good or common good? What legal liabilities are at stake? Implicit

contract (promise) versus legal contract?

Moral Principles (cont.)

What character traits / virtues might guide the decision?

How fair and just is the decision being contemplated? How can justice be achieved?

Is there a universal code of conduct that can be extracted from precedent or comparable circumstances?

How will the public scrutinize the decision? Will you want to read about this in the newspaper tomorrow?

Universal Ethical Values

Trustworthiness Respect Responsibility Loyalty Compassion Fairness