BACHELOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

BPA 12
Special Topics in Public Administration

Edition 2020

RICHARD M. VELUZ, JD, MPA, EnP

 OVERVIEW
Public accountability is the hallmark of modern democratic governance.
Democracy remains a paper procedure if those in power cannot be held
accountable in public for their acts and omissions, for their decisions, their policies,
and their expenditures. Public accountability, as an institution, therefore, is the
complement of public management. As a concept, however, “public
accountability” is rather elusive. It is one of those evocative political words that
can be used to patch up a rambling argument, to evoke an image of
trustworthiness, fidelity, and justice, or to hold critics at bay.1 In this module we
shall attempt to explain and understand the intricacies of governance relative to
constitutional, statutory, and customary international laws. Likewise, jurisprudence
and other decisions of the courts concerning ethical standards in government
shall be one of the focus of the study.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 Comprehend the concept of ethics in government and good

governance
 Show the importance of values and accountability
 Be able to share on ethics in governance and accountability
 Define public accountability on how the student understood the
concept.
 Explain to whom public officials are accountable.
 Describe changes in society which have brought about increasing
concern for accountability.
 Tell how citizen participation and decentralization are means for
assuring public accountability.
 Explain the relationship between democracy and accountability.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING

There are examinations or tests required. Part of your grade will be based on
the Module Assignments which you send in to the instructor. Each Module
Assignment will be given a grade according to the given rubric.

1 https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199226443-e-9

2
 COURSE SYLLABUS

VISION:

Southern Luzon State University as an excellent academic hub in its

curricular programs, transdisciplinary researches, and responsive extension
services.

MISSION:

The University commits to develop a sustained culture of delivering

quality service and undertaking continuous innovations in instruction,
research and extension in its relevant curricular programs supportive of
national and global development goals.

CORE VALUES:

GO – God-loving
S – Service-oriented
L – Leadership by Example
S – Sustained Passion of Excellence
U – Undiminished Commitment to Peace and Environment Advocacy.

GOALS OF THE COLLEGE

The College shall aim to produce responsive, globally prepared, morally upright,
socially and politically aware, research and extension service-oriented and environment-
conscious graduates.

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES:

1. To equip the students with the understanding and knowledge in the sphere of public
administration.

2. To equip the students with the competencies and skills in Public Administration that
will particularly meet the demands of the Philippine Civil Service but not limiting
their capabilities to the opportunities in the private sectors.

3. To expose students to the actual bureaucratic norms, culture, practices and

operations through internship in different government agencies.

4. To inculcate among the faculty and students the essence of social responsibility
through extension programs and research services.

5. To raise awareness on global issues and international relations.

6. To produce graduates that is imbibed with socio-political, economics, and

environmental consciousness.

3
 Goals and objectives
Program’s Educational Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6
To produce competent professionals in the field of Public
Administration capable of making a significant
1    
contribution to the professional and in the sector where
they work may it be in government or in civil society.
To build the foundation of professional knowledge,
professional skills, values, ethics and attributes with a
2    
strong sense of dedication and commitment for good
governance, public service, nationalism and sustainability.
To prepare graduates for technical and administrative
3 positions in government, including foreign service and    
Non-governmental organization.
To inculcate strong sense of duty to actively participate,
4 involve and promote voluntary services outside the    
campus.

1. Course Code : BPA03

2. Course Title : Ethics and Accountability in the Public Service

3. Pre-requisite : None

4. Co-requisite : None

5. Credit/ Class Schedule : 3 Units/ 54 hours (3 lecture hours per week)

6. Course Description : This course explores the public sector ethics as an applied
discipline; as a set of rules that give the answer to the question “what
to do as a public servant in a particular situation”. Responsibilities
of public policy makers and public servants. These responsibilities
occur in the context of completing obligations that guide political
actors inside and outside the government, particularly when notions
of what is good, just and legitimate public policy are contested.

7. Program Outcomes and Relationship to Program Educational Objectives

Program Educational Objectives

Program Outcomes 1 2 3 4
The ability to acquire adequate knowledge in Public
a. Administration and Governance as a concept and    
practice.
Capability of manifest the concepts and knowledge
acquired during the course of study through strong oral
b. 
and written communication skills that will reflect a
competitive Public Administration graduates.
Understanding on the significance of political, social,
c. economic, and environment policies that will carry-out   
the government’s advocacy towards good governance.
Design and conduct researches in the context of Public
d.  
Administration.

4
 Practice ethical values in government and build strong
e.   
commitment to public service.
Understand the importance of participatory governance
f.  
in relation to Philippine public affairs.
Involvement in voluntary services outside the
g.   
University.

8. Course Objectives and Relationship to Program Educational Objectives:

Program Outcomes
Course Objectives
a b c d e f g
Developed among Public Administration students the awareness
1. and knowledge about underlying theories and concepts on public
fiscal administration.
Inculcate amoung students the significant processes pertaining to
2.
public budgeting and budgeting allocation.
Ability to express thoughts in a public forum by participating in
3.
class discussion.
Reasoning and problem solving abilities beyond the level of
4. recognition and recall including evaluation, synthesis, and
integration.

9. Course Coverage:

Week Topic
Week 1 A. Orientation: Vision. Mission, Core Values of SLSU and Program Objectives
B. Orientation and Course Briefing: Make the students aware of the Course
outline, objectives and expected outcomes.

Week 2 A. Understanding Governance & Ethics of Governance

Week 3  Dimension of Ethics
Week 4  Criteria for Ethical Decision-Making
Week 5  The ALIR Criteria or Principles
Week 6  A Model for Ethical Decision-Making
B. Legal Bases and Principles of International Law on Accountability
 R.A No. 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public employee
 R.A No. 9485 Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007
C. Graft and Corruption Practices
 United Nations Convention Against Corruption
 Graft & Corruption

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
Week 7 A. Public Accountability
Week 8  Citizen Participation
Week 9  Citizen Groups
Week 10  Ladder of Citizen Participation
Week 11
Week 12 B. Decentralization
 Know your Community
 Identifying and describing your community
 Community Leaders

C. Communicating for Accountability

 The Importance of Effective Communication

5
  Phases in Program Planning and Implementation
 Methods of Communication
 Effects of Social Media on Communication Skills

MIDTERM EXAMINATION
Week 13 A. Meeting with Citizens/organizations
Week 14  Meeting with Citizens
Week 15  Meeting with Organizations
Week 16  Accountable Officials with Citizen Groups
Week 17 B. Public Assemblies
Week 18  Three Type of Public Assemblies
 Purposes and Timing for Public Assemblies
C. Evaluating Accountability, Participation, & Decentralization
 The need for Evaluation
 Evaluation Measures
 Benefit and Costs of Accountability
D. Administering for Accountability
 Governance
 Intragovernmental Relations
 Citizen/Government Relations
FINAL EXAMINATION

9. Course Outcomes and Relationship to Course Objectives/Program Outcomes:

Course Outcomes Program Outcomes

A student completing this course
should at the minimum be able to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 a b c d e f g h
Familiarize oneself to the
Vision, Mission, Core values of
1.        
SLSU and the Objectives of
BPA.
Understand the theories and
concepts underlying Ethics and
2.         
Public Accountability in Public
Service.
In depth knowledge of the
relevance of ethics and
3          
accountability in good
governance
Actual discernment of the
application of theories in the
4        
context of Philippine
Bureaucracy
Understanding the importance of
morality, ethics and
5          
accountability in the Philippine
Civil Service

6
 RUBRIC FOR PAPER SUBMISSION

Above Meets Approaching Below

Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations
4 3 2 1
Reflective The paper The paper The paper The paper
Thinking explains the explains the attempts to does not
student’s own student’s demonstrate address the
thinking and thinking thinking student’s
learning about his/her about thinking
processes, as own learning learning but is and/or
well as processes. vague and/or learning.
implications unclear
for future about the
learning. personal
learning
process.

Analysis The paper is The paper is The paper The paper

an in-depth an analysis of attempts to does not
analysis of the the learning analyze the move
learning experience learning beyond a
experience, and the value experience description of
the value of of the derived but the value the learning
the derived learning to of the experience.
learning to self or others. learning to
self or others, the student or
and the others is
enhancement vague and/or
of the unclear.
student’s
appreciation
for the
discipline.

Making The paper The paper The paper The paper

Connections articulates articulates attempts to does not
multiple connections articulate articulate any
connections between this connections connection
between this learning between this to other
learning experience learning learning or
experience and content experience experiences.
and content from other and content
from other courses, past from other
courses, past learning courses, past
learning, life experiences, learning
experiences and/or future experiences,
and/or future goals. or personal
goals. goals, but the
connection is
vague and/or
unclear.

7
 STUDY SUGGESTIONS
The modules have been designed for use by individual students without
the direct supervision of a teacher as occurs in a traditional classroom setting.
Provisions have been made for instructor feedback to students on their
performance of each of the Module Assignments.

MODULE 1: Understanding Governance

& Ethics of Governance

DISCUSSION

 What is governance?
a. Is it the task of running a government?
b. Is it organizational effectiveness in policy formulation?
c. Is I power, authority and influence in public matters?

GOVERNANCE is the science of decision-making and the exercise of power and

authority in which society manages its development process and resolves
conflict.2

It has the following attributes:3

 Participatory
 Transparent
 Accountable

 What is ethics?
 Greek “ethos”, a dwelling place. Ethos evolved into a person’s
fundamental orientation towards life.
 In Latin “ethos” is mos, moris. English word = moral, morality
 In Roman times, a shift in emphasis: From internal character to
overt behavior: focus on acts, habits, customs.4

ETHICS – PHILOSOPHY
 Concerned with the intent, means and consequences of moral
behavior
 Study of moral judgment and right and wrong conduct
 Moral conscience is unique to human beings5

2 Ateneo School of Government (ASoG)

3 ibid
4 ibid
5 ibid

8
 The TWO dimension of Ethics6
Governance, being an influence relationship among government
administrators and citizens who intend real changes that reflect their mutual
purposes is concerned with both PROCESS and CONTENT.

 PROCESS
 concerned with the ways government and citizens interact as
they attempt to influence one another
 Does one act ethically in one’s relations with another player while
attempting to influence them?
 Coercion or persuasion? Majority vote or consensus?

 CONTENT
 the proposed changes that government and citizens intend for
the society
 Are the changes (decisions, policies, positions) that one supports
morally acceptable?)
 The moral acceptability of one’s position as an advocate for
and/or support of an issue (e.g. Technical efficiency?
Procurement of facilities and equipment? Staff hiring? Added
tax? Charter Change?

Criteria for Ethical Decision – Making

Moral and ethical standards are often regarded as limitations. These are
not seen as legitimate objectives to be pursued in public service. Thus, moral &
ethical standards tend to be overlooked or even ignored in actual decision-
making process. As a result, administration and management become
divorced from ethics and morals.7

The A L I R criteria or principles …8

 Responsibility to someone or for some activity

 The obligation of a subordinate to answer to his superior for the exercise
of authority in line with his delegated responsibility, for the performance
of duties assigned to him.
 In a democracy, those wo work in the public sector are guided by and
subordinated to political authority (those elected by the people to
govern)

6 ibid
7 Ateneo School of Government (ASoG)
8 Ibid

9
  Since the source of all power is the people, then all power must be
exercised in the name of and for the general interest of the people.
 Unethical conduct – bribery, theft, favoritism, abuse of power – consist in
the violation of law, that is, putting someone above or beyond the law.
 Consistent and fair enforcement of the law should be the first priority of
an ethics reform strategy
 In a democracy, those who work in the public sector are guided by and
subordinated to political authority.

 Civil servants are supposed to be fully competent based on knowledge

experience and expertise. (Civil Service Eligibility)
 These competencies are usually accompanied by a set of shared
standards and values defined by professional ethics/code of conduct.
 Avoiding corruption in the purchase and delivery of services.

 Public institutions should be responsive to society and pay attention to

the needs and demands of the people
 This calls for an awareness and a readiness to adapt to changing values
and conditions in society.

Key Lessons
 Ethics guides citizens in undertaking social accountability initiatives.
 Ethical engagement raises the level of participation in governance.

A MODEL FOR ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING9

1. Gather the facts

 Gather and clarify the facts of the case in question.
 If case proves to be difficult, gathering facts is an essential first
step prior to ethical analysis and reflection of the case.
 Questions that should be asked are:
 What do we know?
 What do we need to know?

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

 Ethical issues should be stated in terms of competing interests,
goods, or values – a “dilemma statement”

9 Ateneo School of Government (ASoG)

10
  Use the ____________vs._____________ format to reflect interests
that are colliding.
e.g. Career vs. Reputation
Money vs. Friendship
Family survival vs. Accountability to the people

“Dilemma” implies that the satisfaction of the one can only be made
if the other is sacrificed. It has no clear solution because the solution
reached would be no more than a splitting of the different aspects of
one issue.

3. Determine the principles or criteria that have bearing on the case

 In any dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles
central to the conflicting positions.
 Question is: Which values or principles weigh most heavily?
 Some sources of principles:
o ALIR
o Buddhist/Christian/Islamic principles
o Constitutional principles
o Principles drawn from natural law
o Principles from one’s sense of mission or calling
o Principles upheld by the organization

4. List the alternative options

 Think creatively… come up with various alternative courses of
action.
 The more alternatives listed, the better the chance that you will
include high-quality ones.
 Think of creative alternatives not considered before; think
unconventional.

5. Compare the alternatives with principle

 Eliminate alternatives according to the moral principles that have
a bearing on the case.
 Determine if a clear decision can be made without further
deliberation.
 If not, then go to the next step.

6. Weigh the consequences

 Weigh the consequences of the remaining alternatives.
 Consider both positive and negative consequences.
 Some positive consequences are more beneficial than
others.
 Some negative consequences are more detrimental than
others.

11
 7. Make a decision
 Deliberation cannot go on forever…avoid “paralysis by analysis”
 Realize that there are no easy and painless solutions to ethical
dilemmas.
 The decision should involve the least number of problems or
negative consequences.

LEARNING EXERCISE

Case Study Analysis

The DPWH, the government’s engineering and construction arm, is the

country’s “roads and bridges” office. It no longer enjoys a monopoly over public
works, a task it shares with other departments, government corporations, and
local government units, but it has consistently suffered from a poor public image
because it is perceived to be one of the most corrupt agencies of government.
The DPWH’s reputation and credibility over the years have suffered. Reports of
misdeeds such as bribery, kickbacks, and collusion have tainted the DPWH’s
name, and never fail to make headlines, especially since the sums of money
involved run into millions of dollars. Philippine presidents as well as public works
secretaries have invariably made it their priority to rid the DPWH of this bad
image. They have instituted many anticorruption initiatives in the construction
sector, in various forms and approaches, which are documented in Section 1
of this study. One approach covers programs instituted within the bureaucracy,
specifically the DPWH, aimed at streamlining processes, promoting efficiency
and honesty in public works, and purging the organization of corrupt and
incompetent personnel. Yet another form is through decree and legislation, and
the foremost statute that applies to procurement in the construction sector is
the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA). The GPRA is intended to
rectify and remove the practices that allowed corruption to seep into the
bidding, award, and implementation of contracts. Outside the government,
anticorruption efforts include civil society engagement with procurement
agencies and the monitoring of the construction sector. But despite the
numerous efforts over the past two decades, reform intervention and
anticorruption measures have been inadequate, selective, and weak.10

Submit a 300 – 350 words reflection paper relative to the

above case study. It shall be graded according to the rubric
mentioned.

10 http://infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/case-study-anti-corruption-initiatives-in-the-philippines/

12
 MODULE 2: Legal Bases and Principles of
International Law on Accountability

DISCUSSION

 What is Constitutional Law; Statutory Law; International Law?

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is the fundamental and

organic law of a nation or state that establishes the
institution and system of government, defines the. scope
of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees
individual civil rights and civil liberties. 11

STATUTORY LAW is a body of written laws that have been adopted by the
legislative body.12 (Enacted by Congress e.g. Republic Act 11469 otherwise
known as the “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act”)

INTERNATIONAL LAW is a league or agreement between two or more

independent states whereby they unite for their mutual advantage. (e.g. United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The Philippine Constitution have safeguards to ensure that there shall be

accountability in public office. Section 27, Article II (Declaration of Principles
and State Policies) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “The State
shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and
effective measures against graft and corruption.” In addition, Article XI of the
Constitution is solely devoted to “ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.” Under
such Article, the first section states that “Public Office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity and loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” (emphasis, italic supplied)

Q. What is meant by “public office as a public trust?”

A. As expressed by Justice Malcolm in Cornejo v. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188, 194
(1920), the basic idea of government in the Philippines “is that of a
representative government, the officers being mere agents and not
rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of men has a
proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where every officer

11 Black’s Law Dictionary

12 Ibid

13
 accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and holds the office
as a trust for the people whom he represents.”13

LEARNING EXERCISE

On a separate sheet, express your understanding on the following:

1. “officers being mere agents and not rulers of people”

2. “no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an
office”
3. “every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and holds
the office as a trust for the people whom he represents”

Statutes are ample source of provisions to hold public officers

accountable on their action/s. The following are some examples of laws
enacted by the legislature to ensure integrity in the public service:

 Executive Order 292 – Administrative Code of the Philippines

 Act No. 3815, as amended – The Revised Penal Code
 RA No. 3019, as amended – Anti – Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 RA No. 6713, as amended – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees
 RA No. 7080, as amended – Anti – Plunder Act
 RA No. 1379 – Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth of Public
Officers and Employees
 PD No. 46 – Act Punishing the Receiving and Giving of Gifts of Public
Officials and Employees.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. List the corrupt practices of public officers provided in section 3 of RA

3019, as amended.
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_3019_1960.html
2. Enumerate the norms of conduct of a public officer/employee as
prescribed in section 4 (A) of RA 6713 as amended.
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6713_1989.html
3. What constitute the act of plunder?
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/republicacts/Republic_Act_No_708
0.pdf
4. What is ill-gotten wealth?
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1955/ra_1379_1955.html

13 Bernas, J. G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 ed.

14
 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
 States are concerned that corruption poses serious
problems and threats to democratic society.
 States consider corruption as no longer a local matter but a
transnational phenomenon.
 States must have a comprehensive and multidisciplinary
approach to prevent and combat corruption effectively.

A Global Responsibility
 All States are responsible for the prevention and eradication of
corruption.
 They must cooperate with one another.
 They must seek the support and involvement of individuals and groups
outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental
organizations and community-based organizations.

Purposes of Convention
 To promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption
more efficiently and effectively.
 To promote, facilitate and support international cooperation and
technical assistance in the prevention of and fight against corruption,
including in asset recovery.
 To promote integrity, accountability and proper management of public
affairs and public property.

UNCAC, Article 13: Participation of society

1. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures within its means and in
accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, to promote
the active participation of individuals and groups outside the public
sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and
community-based organizations, in the prevention of and fight against
corruption and to raise public awareness regarding the existence, causes
and gravity of and the threat posed by corruption.

This participation should be strengthened by:

(a) Enhancing the transparency of and promoting the contribution of the
public to decision-making processes;
(b) Ensuring that the public has effective access to information;
(c) Undertaking public information activities that contribute to non-
tolerance of corruption, as well as public education programmes,
including school and university curricula;
(d) Respecting, promoting and protecting the freedom to seek, receive,
publish and disseminate information concerning corruption, subject to
certain restrictions, such as those necessary:

15
 (i) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;
(ii) For the protection of national security or public oreder or of
public health or morals.

LEARNING EXERCISE

Submit a paper essaying your role in governance, how should you play that
role, and how can your participation in governance be made ethical.

MODULE 3: Public Accountability

Introduction

This topic will examine the concept of accountability as applicable to

public officials. Citizen participation and decentralization are discussed as two
policies and methods which can be used to enhance public accountability.
The course surveys five skills which public officials can use to maintain contact
with citizens and to improve accountability. Citizens also can use these skills in
organizing their areas, neighborhoods, or communities. Some techniques are
presented to enable citizens and officials to evaluate accountability, the level
of participation, and the effectiveness of decentralization. Further, this is
intended to help students to establish a practical perspective from which to
consider the following issues as well as to develop some proficiency in the skills
needed to address them: (a) offering a middle position between the two
extremes of (1) total government provision of services with little required
accountability and (2) mainly individual provision of services with accountability
to self but lacking social provision of needed services; (b) demonstrating
accountability through involvement with citizens; (c) meeting the requirements
for citizen participation or public involvement in nationally funded programs; (d)
easing the difficulty of policy-making decisions; (e) reducing the burden of
decision-making by decentralization and reassigning responsibilities; (f)
establishing better relations in the community; (g) improving delivery of service;
(h) strengthening the communication process and; (i) avoiding disruptions of
government.

16
 DISCUSSION

LESSON I - ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is defined by one dictionary as "The quality or state of

being accountable, liable or responsible." Public officials are accountable in
that they must explain to their constituency their actions and their reasons for
taking these actions. They are liable, legally and morally, for omissions or
commissions of duties entrusted to them. They are responsible in a larger sense;
they have, in trust, the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens in their
charge. They are responsible, as well, for other resources: land, water, air, non-
human resources, and more abstract assets, such as reputation, integrity,
reasonable efficiency. All of these resources may be said to reside "in the public
trust." Public accountability must mean responsibility to all members of the
society of the group represented. Certainly it is no longer appropriate (or just)
to serve a small proportion of the populace. Too often decisions have been
made in favor of the well-to-do. In almost any urban area, for example, most of
us can cite examples of roads built or urban renewal projects planned and
carried out largely for the benefit of upper income persons. Yet, many persons
were relocated and suffered hardships because of these projects. To be
accountable is not an occasional event. Elected or appointed officials must be
responsible for all their decisions and all of their actions. Infrequent elections are
hardly satisfactory vehicles for determining accountability. As Charles Frankel
said: "Responsibility is the product of definite social arrangements"; that is,
citizens should institute defined procedures; laws, requirements which do more
than hope for official accountability.14

The examples listed below should help to clarify further the meaning of
accountability.

1. Audit both financial and program review: accountants or other - experts

review financial accounts yearly or on special occasions. Increasingly
audits also examine program effectiveness as well as the legality of
expenditures.
2. Recall and Impeachment: recall begins with citizen petitions calling for
removal of an official from office. Impeachment generally begins with
the legislative branch. Neither process has been much used.
3. Civil Service Employment: officials and public employees are hired
through the use of the "merit system" (examination, competition;
established procedures) rather than by means of a "spoils system"
patronage; political favoritism.
4. Ombudsman: this is an official, often appointed for a long period of time;
who investigates citizens' grievances against administrative abuse.

14 Ham, Clifford C. Public Accountability, University of Pittsburgh

17
 5. Conduct meetings which are open to all members of the public;
eliminate or restrict the use of "executive" sessions"; make public decisions
and publish agendas; reports, minutes and other information responsive
to "the citizens' right to know."
6. Transparent budgeting system would accomplish a similar purpose.
7. Elections: the ultimate test of an elected official's accountability or lack
thereof is his or her ability to be returned to elective office.

Some other non-official means of holding officials accountable should

also be briefly mentioned; namely;
 Press (i.e., newspapers and to a lesser extent, radio, television, and other
media): the news media, among other services, frequently provides
public exposure of scandals, administrative misbehavior, or other wrongs.

 Citizen Pressure: individuals or organized groups can insist on

accountability of officials. If no satisfaction is received, citizens can use
some of the official methods suggested in the preceding list, such as
recall or complaining to an ombudsman.

Elected officials are not the only officials who are accountable. Many
non-elected officials such as government civil servants make decisions, some of
which are difficult to challenge. Even if the right of recall is available to remove
incompetent or corrupt elected officials, it seldom is applicable to appointed
persons, especially if they serve under Civil Service agreements. The use of the
"ombudsman" provides one means of redressing the complaints of citizens or, in
other words, holding officials "accountable". Most public officials, we shall
assume, really want to "do the right thing", to be accountable, to be "public
servants." They want to provide services and to aid their constituents. But part of
the problem in being accountable is knowing how to judge responses to their
activities. Are the citizens pleased with services or they are they dissatisfied? Are
the services actually reaching those intended are only a limited number getting
well-served? Public officials must also properly ask: to whom am I accountable?

There are many "publics" to be served and other groups which must be
satisfied, examples of which include:
 National and local agencies/officials who supply funds, interpret
legislation, oversee, and evaluate subsequent expenditure of funds;
 Private funding sources, e.g., foundations;
 Political influences, parties;
 The local administrative "hierarchy;" Business and labor (sometimes tightly
organized and a strong pressure group; other times individuals,
businesses, or unions);
 Citizens, organized or unorganized;
 Special interest groups of citizens or sectoral groups (aged, youth, poor,
minorities, etc.);

18
  The "media".

Accountability, while it relates to each of these groups, applies most of all

to the citizenry. Only occasionally are citizens well-organized and powerful
enough to demand their rights or get their desires fulfilled. Only a few groups,
have enough "clout" to win battles once in a while. Yet, the concept of
accountability should mean to officials that the needs or desires of citizens are
taken care of, as far as possible, before the concerns of organized interest
groups. Most of all, using the theory of justice concept, to be described next,
no one should be hurt, no one should lose, in order that others benefit.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Define accountability, first; using a dictionary, then using the

introduction, and finally in your own words.

2. Describe several official ways in which: an official may be held

accountable.

3. Why may it be difficult for a public official to be accountable to "the

public"?

4. Out of your own experience; recount an example of public

accountability on the part of a public official.

5. What are some important groups to whom a public official should be

accountable?

Q. WHY ACCOUNTABILITY?
Why discuss public accountability? Why are public officials concerned
about accounting to citizens, on the one hand, and to other levels of
government on the other? What indications are there that citizens are
demanding accountability from officials?

The emphasis on technical skills, qualifications, and technology brings with

it demands for efficiency and economy. One of the reasons for providing
services publicly is efficiency or "cost effectiveness." With technology, generally,
come measures of effectiveness. Strangely, their own measures publicly-
provided services are not always cheaper. As city/town size increases the cost
of services increases even faster. Evaluation measures rarely demonstrate

19
conclusively that services or programs meet their goals or serve the population
intended. Paradoxically, the same technology which leads cities to provide a
broad range of public services brings with it measures and evaluations which
are critical of those services. Persons providing services for themselves will hardly
be so critical. There exists today the "politics of protest," a powerful force in
American life protesting decisions of "the establishment," the powerlessness of
the ordinary citizen, the threats of bigness and continued growth. Consumers
question the ethics and the choices of manufacturers. Groups, especially
minorities, women, youth, and the aged express dissatisfaction with their
situation. This latter demand for accountability we label the "politics of protest."
Related to the "politics of protest" are taxpayers' revolts. Complaints about high
rates of taxes, combined with dissatisfaction with services, have led to cost-
cutting, economy moves, and, in a few cases, actual tax cuts. Certainly much
objection is raised about costs of welfare services, the mounting costs of
education at all levels, and escalation of medical bills. Again the public is
demanding accountability for the decisions and the actions of officials. It is in
this context that a study of public accountability is appropriate. To meet the
demands of citizens, the protests of groups, in a society which expects complex
programs and projects to be carried out by government (rather than the simpler
guardianship and "housekeeping" demands of the past), public officials
increasingly look toward decentralization and citizen participation as means of
demonstrating accountability. Officials use these approaches to keep in touch
with citizens, to ascertain needs and desires, but also to account to them for
their decisions, actions, or inaction. No longer can public officials operate in a
closed backroom, indeed, if ever they could! Citizen participation can be
utilized to enable public officials to account to citizens. It helps officials establish
interpersonal relations in the community. It may avoid citizen confrontation.
Participation provides an indicator of citizen satisfaction with projects; services,
and programs. Decentralization is a planned effort on the part of public officials
to be responsive to the needs and concerns of citizens. As such, it is also a
means for public officials to demonstrate accountability. Administrative
decentralization puts some decisions and work projects or programs closer to
the citizens. It allows direct communication among officials and citizens. Like
participation it can measure and react to citizen satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with municipal services.

20
 LESSON II - CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

“The idea of citizen participation is a

little like spinach: no one is against it
in principle because it is good for you”
S. Arnstein, 1969

Citizen participation has been defined in many ways; in fact; each citizen
group probably has its unique description of the purpose, methods, and ends
of citizen involvement. As part of our attempt to define it; let us begin with the
term "citizen", which has often been taken for granted. A citizen is a role in which
a person does not derive most of his/her income from the programs of concern
nor from the participation activities. In this sense "citizen" includes most city
officials, members of authorities, or consultants, except when their particular
governmental programs are considered. On the other hand, it would exclude
those on the payroll of a particular service or program when that program is
being discussed; or the community organizers themselves. This definition of
"citizen" is very similar to Rawls' idea of the "representative persons" in their
"original position"; that is, persons who make decisions unaffected by
knowledge of influence of their present position and who are representative; in
a sense; of all other persons. For example, police officers may well be "citizens"
when housing or highway programs are being discussed; they change their role
if crime or taxes are being discussed and then play an "official" role.

Citizen participation may be described as the opportunity for citizens:

 to learn of proposals; plans, or programs of potential interest;
 to express their opinion, advice or reactions to proposals, plans, or
programs either affecting a neighborhood or a broader geographical
area of concern;
 to communicate directly to staff members of an organization or city
officials; and
 to expect to receive feedback and response to the reactions expressed.

Desmond M. Connor defines "constructive citizen participation" as "a

systematic process which provides an opportunity for citizens, planners, elected
representatives, and members of relevant area agencies to share their
experience, knowledge, and goals and to combine their energy to create a
plan. Participation may involve the concerned citizen in activities such as public
meetings and hearings, committee work, communicating with politicians and

21
 other decision makers and finding out about how decisions are made. Such a
citizen will also keep informed about issues, the decision-making process, other
concerned individuals and groups, and ways of getting opinions heard. Citizen
participation need not mean attending meetings, for one can get opinions
expressed and actions taken in other ways, as for example, telephone calls or
letter writing.

Desmond M. Connor suggests that constructive citizen participation is

happening when:

 planners listen to residents concerning their attitudes, goals; fears, and

factual suggestions;
 citizens find early and convenient opportunities to make positive
contributions. ("Citizens" may include visitors as well as residents, e.g.,
when tourists are part of the public.)
 citizens learn from planners and others a broader and deeper knowledge
and understanding of their environment, its potential and --its fragility;
 individuals, interest groups, and agencies are identifying their own
positions, recognizing those of others and working towards, a win-win
solution co-operatively rather than becoming locked into a destructive
win-lose or lose-lose pattern;
 relationships between planners, politicians, and other people are
strengthened so that communication barriers are breached and mutual
trust increases as a foundation for communities to function more
effectively in every way.

On the other hand, Connor points out that constructive citizen

participation is NOT:

 selling a pre-determined solution technique;

 planning behind closed doors shared;
 one-way communication, e.g., what is best for them; by public relations
when information can be planners telling people - public confrontations
between "people power" versus the bureaucracy;
 bypassing elected representatives or impairing their freedom to exercise
their decision-making responsibilities.15

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. What is "constructive citizen participation"?

2. What are some of the requisites for meaningful or constructive citizen
participation?

15 Desmond M. Connor, Citizens Participate: An Action Guide_for Public Issues, p.7

22
 Another way of classifying citizen participation is by the type of
organization. There are many categories or types of citizens' organizations.
Groups can be classified by the interests shown, as for example hobby groups,
outdoor activity groups; conservation or nature-loving groups, sport enthusiasts,
or indoor recreation types. Another way of classifying groups is according to
their member-selection process. Is the group based upon a particular
geographic area, or on a special interest or concern? Does the group require
special attributes or employment to belong, or is its membership open to all?
Some organizations are based on circumstances of birth: ethnic, racial, or sex-
based groups. Organizations can be typed according to the breadth of
membership so we note international organizations, nationwide groups, state,
county, community, or neighborhood association. Some organizations are
"issue-oriented", and focus mainly on pressing concerns of an area; others are
"service-oriented", seeking to render assistance to neighbors on a continuing
basis.

The following "types" of citizen groups cover some of the broad aspects
of citizen participation in relation to municipal and community concerns.

 Community- organization is a label covering a broad spectrum of groups

and their activities. Included would he: block clubs, neighborhood
organizations, district or community councils; associations of councils,
community improvement groups, and city-wide coalitions. These groups
normally have a geographical limit and focus. "Functional" groups such
as taxpayers’ associations, League of Women Voters, Parent-Teacher
Associations, and environmental groups represent another type of
community organization. Community organizations may be made up
entirely of citizens or volunteers; some have professional "organizers."
Schools of social work train such organizers for geographical groups,
functional organizations and official. Normally, community organizations
adopt "cooperative" strategies in their dealings with officials.

 Community development is a related concept and includes groups

which may be quite similar to community organizations. They focus on
community change and improvement and are generally associated with
the "Third World" or developing countries. Peace Corps activities were
frequently community development efforts.

 Citizen Advisory Groups or Committees are generally encouraged by

official agencies. In fact, legislation often required that advisory groups
be formed. Model Cities and many other programs stipulate citizen
involvement today. As is to be expected, these groups are characterized
by a "cooperative" strategy.

 Social Action Groups have as their focus institutional changes with

respect to the distribution of power, resources, and service. These groups

23
 often begin with a sense of values or concerns at variance with existing
values or practices. Religious groups, conservation groups, or peace
associations are typical of "social action" organizations. Social action
groups tend to run the gamut of the strategies and tactics suggested
above. With their demands for reform and immediate action to alleviate
pressing problems, action groups may start in a "cooperative" stance,
move quickly to a "competitive" position because of their alternative
proposals, and, because of the intransigence of the establishment, switch
to "conflict" strategies.

 Political Organizations are volunteer citizen groups. Like community

organizations, they range from the smallest geographical areas (blocks
or precincts) up through wards, cities, counties, to national coalitions in
election years. Working through existing political structure, most political
groups and parties tend to be "cooperative" or "competitive." Splinter
parties, on the other hand, may adopt "confrontation" stances.

 Radical Groups, with the goal of overthrowing a particular government,

clearly represent the "conflict" strategy. Civil rights organizations have
tended to use a range of strategies from cooperation to competition and
then to civil disobedience (marches, sitting in the "wrong" section of the
bus, sit-ins, boycotts, and other forms of protest). Such groups provide
another demonstration that is risky to label citizen groups by their "typical"
strategy. Most 'organizers would probably recommend fitting tactics and
strategies to the specific situation and carefully selecting the means to
achieve each goal.

Citizen participation can also have various "levels" in practice; ranging

from non-participation through tokenism to citizen control. While none of the
levels is "pure" and, again, one group may be resting on several of the rungs of
the ladder, the scaling of levels of participation is useful. Sherry Arnstein has
suggested the following "ladder of citizen participation." 16

16 https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=21024&section=4.1

24
 Briefly, each of the "rungs on a ladder of citizen participation" may be
described as follows:

1. Manipulation - This is a form of "non-participation” where people are used

more for public relations: purposes than for their contributions; Many
"advisory" groups really educate or try to persuade the citizens rather than
the other way around.
2. Therapy -- The citizens are seen as "ill", and so are aided in adjustment to
the status quo, rather than the social institutions themselves being
corrected.
3. Informing - One-way communication occurs which at least does let
citizens know their rights and sometimes plans and proposals, but no way
of influencing the plans is established.
4. Consultation - Citizens are asked for their ideas and opinions through
devices like attitude surveys and neighborhood meetings, but they still
have little power to affect either the kinds of information or the use made
of it.
5. Placation - Some "token" members of the community are placed on a
board, or limited concessions are made to citizens. Basically, people are
being planned for; but it is recognized that they exist.
6. Partnership - Citizens and powerholders negotiate and share planning
and- decision- making responsibilities. They may use such structures as
joint policy boards, planning committees, or other means of resolving
disagreements. The citizens actually have a role and a modicum of
power.
7. Delegated Power - By contract or less formal agreement citizens are
allowed to make decisions in certain planning or program areas; they
may be allowed to make policy, hire or fire some staff, or carry out some
functions, but the citizens remain under the control of a governmental
organization.
8. Citizen Control - This is best illustrated by a neighborhood school board,
a community corporation, or a citizens’ organization which can develop,
operate, and control specific services. Such groups can be said to have
power and control. Nevertheless, like most social groups, there may be
an ultimate veto power.

LEARNING EXERCISE

From your own experience and from these readings, what are the difficulties in
categorizing "participation" as Arnstein does? Can you suggest other ways of
categorizing "participation"?

25
 LESSON III - DECENTRALIZATION

This concept of decentralization is related to accountability and to citizen

participation. The term decentralization is defined and discussed, and several
forms of decentralization are examined. Decentralization is viewed as one
approach to improved municipal government operation but not as a method
to be used to the total exclusion of centralization. Decentralization can range
from an elemental transfer of administrative powers from a central government
to a local government control of decision-making.

Decentralization by the national government can be considered another

evidence of concern for accountability. A central government willing to station
workers in various local governments is exposing them to public scrutiny; in this
way the officials may be indicating: "We have nothing to hide, we want to be
accountable." The local field office gives citizens, individually or in groups, the
chance to visit the regional/district office, to ask questions, to observe
operations, to suggest ideas, and, yes, to complain. If the regional/district office
allows it, citizens can have input into some decisions affecting the area. Most of
us are familiar with the opposite approach - the centralizing of all decisions
"downtown": out-of-sight and unexposed to citizen scrutiny. Clearly one would
judge that a decentralized administration can lead to more accountability.

Decentralization can have several meanings. One definition, and not

particularly useful for this course, sees decentralization as increased
fragmentation of government and ultimately the withering away of all
government. Because it is presumed that many services must continue to be
provided collectively or by government, we anticipate that urban government
shall continue and, in fact, the range of services may increase. A second
conception of decentralization describes the division of a previously centralized
operational unit into several subdivisions but without a corresponding allocation
of decision-making responsibility. This has been labelled "administrative
decentralization."

A third meaning of decentralization implies the assigning of operating

responsibilities and some decision-making power to the local units. Generally,
decisions affecting the whole region or larger areas would continue to be made
in the central unit, but decisions affecting primarily the local area could be
made at that level. This would permit some input from citizens in the locality and
from other operating agencies. Citizens would retain the right to go to the
national government to influence overall policies. This third meaning of
decentralization is often called "political decentralization" to indicate the
transfer of authority to officials who are responsible to the local electorate.

26
 LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Define decentralization as used in this lesson

2. How is decentralization related to accountability?

LESSON IV - KNOW YOUR COMMUNITY

“We have to find some way to re-create the

spirit of neighborliness and mutual self-
support that existed before the mobility
and the anonymity and increasing
information flow that has been the
product of this very prosperous society.”
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Public officials must know a lot about the communities they serve. Yet the
term "community" is an elusive one; it can mean the entire municipality or parts
of the jurisdiction; a greater regional area or an association of like-minded
persons. Citizens, generally can describe their residential areas, but studies have
shown that perceptions of "communities° vary widely. This module offers a
general definition of "community" and suggests different applications of the
term. Both citizens and-officials should know some basic facts about the
community or communities, A sampling of questions suggests some kinds of
information useful to both officials or residents. Probably more information is
available describing particular aspects of communities than can ever be
utilized; yet other pieces of information often are lacking. One way of finding
out about a community is "listening." An official can listen to the constituents of
an area, or a citizen can hear the ideas and opinions of neighbors; this process
is especially useful in understanding attitudes. Leaders are an especially
important part of a neighborhood. How does one discover the natural leaders
in a community? What kind of leadership do different leaders provide?

27
  IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING YOUR COMMUNITY 17

Public officials who seek to be accountable must know their community

or communities. Officials serving large urban areas must deal with many publics
and many geographical groupings of people. Each group will have its own
interests and concerns. Some of these groups have a clearly delineated
geographical setting; others may be organized or and interests and represent
a diffused area. While we recognize the groups focused on interests, such as a
conservation club or taxpayers league, in this section we will primarily discuss
groupings of citizens within a municipal context. Being informed about the
community will help officials select appropriate staff, strategies and tactics,
programs, ways to cooperate with each area, and procedures to supply
services in an effective and acceptable manner. Citizen participation efforts or
decentralization decisions depend heavily on the types of communities
affected. Also, these questions must be answered: Do officials consider only the
total city and overall needs or do they consider, as well, the desperate needs
and desires of neighborhoods, districts, communities, and other areas? The
accountable official must be responsive to the smaller groups as well as to city-
wide services and interests. Citizens, too, perceive their areas in diverse ways
and accept several sets of boundaries. While citizens normally have a clear
concept of "their community," their perceptions may differ one from another.
The identification and use of the community may also vary; some citizens rarely
leave the neighborhood; enjoying all their associations nearby, while others use
the neighborhood mainly as a "bedroom community." Recognizing
"communities" is not always easy. Within a large city, consequently, we find
neighborhoods, districts, quarters, or groups which may have no legal or
political bounds but which may have a rich historical or cultural tradition. When
officials or citizens examine a particular area, they may find that they do not
agree among themselves as to what constitutes a "community" and establishes
its boundaries. They may be using different bases to determine the community,
such as (1) political jurisdictions; (2) social relationships; (3) business centers; and
(4) citizen perception. These four concepts, in particular, will be discussed in
more detail, but other delineations of communities may also be considered,
such as (5) history and tradition; '(6) cultural distinctions; (7) socio-economic
status; and (8) geographical separation.

1. Political jurisdictions determine "community" for public officials to a large

extent. Officials are concerned with political precincts, wards, districts,
and city/municipality boundaries. Even if a community is considered by
some to extend over a boundary, the officials must restrict services to the
area of their responsibility. In many instances political boundaries and the
meanings of community are identical; this would be the case in many
small cities, some suburban areas, and a few politically-autonomous,
small groups within a larger city.

17 Ibid

28
 2. Social relationships may determine a community for its residents, even if
political boundaries seem to cut the area into different jurisdictions. The
citizens may enjoy most of their social interactions within an area
unrelated to political entities and use social institutions, such as schools;
churches, libraries, and parks, which cut across political boundaries. They
probably form friendships irrespective of the political boundaries, and
they consider themselves part of the New York social milieu. The same
identification occurs in cities across ward and precinct lines. Officials may
be less concerned with social past. erns but today are becoming
increasingly, aware of their importance-in preserving viable urban life.

3. Business focus may also determine "a community." People shopping in a

large commercial center, using services performed there, and taking
advantage of other business opportunities may consider the area their
com= munity. An example of this is an urban renewal area which is
located on the boundary of several city wards, being partially in four. The
whole area is recognized as "a community," while each ward has
separate social relationships and business areas which make those wards
"communities" too.

4. Citizens perceive or identify a community in other ways, perhaps using

some of the other meanings of community as their focus, but delineating
distinctive boundaries nevertheless. Certain streets, topographical
features, or activities suggest a "perceived community." A business center
may be the focus of such a community, or certain cultural institutions, but
the community is perceived as something more by its residents. Officials
should recognize the importance of the citizen perceptions.

Similarly, one can delineate communities by the other factors of history,

geography, culture, or social' status. However, the community is delineated, the
point is that officials will adjust their services and their concerns to the particular
community. And in order to make these adjustments it is necessary for the
officials to know more about the community or communities. There are a
number of characteristics that officials should study to help them be
accountable to the residents. These characteristics, may be grouped into
broad categories which are listed below with representative questions of the
kind to which knowledgeable officials should have answers.

 Residents: What kind of people live in the "community"? What are their
interests, concerns, and goals? What kinds of problems do the citizens
report for themselves or for the community as a whole? What are the
basic attitudes and values of the people? What are their aspirations and
felt needs? How do they feel about the present services, programs, and
facilities provided for their community? What is the reaction of the people
to public issues? What is the reaction of the people to public issues? What

29
 areas of cooperation and conflict between the residents and their
government are observable?

 Housing: How many persons live in the community? What is the social,
economic, racial, ethnic, age background of residents? Are residents
mainly in family groups? Are there many single person households? What
kinds of housing may be found? How frequently do families or other
groups) move? the area relatively stable or transient?

 Physical Aspects: What are the physical characteristics of the

community? What are the boundaries? Do residents perceive this as a
"community"? Is the area isolated or physically tied to other communities?
What are the land uses in the area? The transportation patterns?
Community facilities (parks, schools, shopping centers, etc.)?

 Cultural Institutions: What are the institutions of the area, i.e., churches,
schools, libraries, recreation centers, parks, and playgrounds, etc.?

 Leadership: What kind of leadership does the area have? Are there many
community organizations? What kind of issues do the community
organizations focus on? What are their strategies (consensus,
competition, or conflict)? Is there a high level of volunteer activity and a
high level of community concern?

 Relationships: What relationships do residents of the area have with other

communities? Do they shop, go to school and church, and participate in
recreational activities in the area or outside of the area? Do workers
commute to their jobs or are the jobs nearby? Are there organizational
alliances with other groups' political allegiances? Church, labor, race or
ethnic, or other ties to other neighborhoods?

Answering these questions helps public officials to learn about the

community or communities in their jurisdiction. Then they can select appropriate
citizen participation or decentralization strategies. For example, an upper
income, stable neighborhood may form its own association, have many
volunteer workers, and feel it is incumbent upon public Officials to respond
quickly to neighborhood requests. The strategy adopted by officials may be
mainly to inform workers of the city's policy to cooperate with this community,
to respond as rapidly as possible to requests, and to refer difficult requests to a
liaison person in the mayor's office. City officials will be encouraged to visit the
community frequently, attend association meetings, and maintain cordial
relations. A lower income area, on the other hand, may lack either a community
association or the incentive to form one. Resources are limited in the area, and
residents, being more recently arrived in the city, do not understand how the
city responds to requests. In this example, the city might establish a district office
so residents can take requests directly to a concerned official. The city may go
further and actually provide trained professional workers to build a citizens’

30
 association, to encourage residents to take their requests to the district office,
and to assist in planning for the area. In cases such as these, if the citizens are
to participate, public funds may be needed to help the process along.
Knowledge about the various communities is essential, therefore, to know the
conditions under which citizen participation and decentralization are possible.
The more that officials know about an area, the less likely they will be to make
serious errors and jeopardize their programs. One way of getting information is
through review of available materials: census reports, planning reports, studies
done of the community by students or news reporters, and business statistics.
Another excellent way is to listen to the community residents themselves. As
more and more citizens expect to participate in their government, intend to be
heard, and want officials to meet and discuss issues with them on a personal
basis, the wise public officials will learn how to listen to their constituents. Officials
will want to learn how to relate directly with citizens. They will agree that perhaps
they don't know "what is best for the citizens of the community." The appropriate
solution, then, is to listen. Listening may mean asking a question or two to start
off a conversation. It means discovering what problems and concerns a citizen
has. It implies listening to proposals offered for the improvement of the
community. It means hearing complaints about taxes and the way things have
been done in the fast. Listening also suggests some interpretation: what are the
real gripes of these citizens? and where is government really failing them?
Listening does not mean answering back, giving explanations as to why certain
actions were taken, or justifying decisions of city workers. Listening is the best
way of getting a "feel" for the community, of learning what issues are uppermost
in the minds of the residents, and what may be possible solutions. The best
aspect of simply listening is that, often, after being heard at length, the citizen
is ready to begin a constructive process of working together. It is at this point
that an appropriate form of participatory activity can be introduced. 18

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. In your own words, state some reasons why officials should know about
the community they serve.
2. What four meanings are suggested for the word community?
3. Provide an example for each meaning from your own community.
4. List five categories of facts one should learn about a community. How
might you collect the information included in each category?

18 Ibid

31
  COMMUNITY LEADERS

An essential part of any community is its leadership. Who are the people
who make decisions in a locality? Who influence policies and programs? What
folks should public officials contact to learn about the community, its concerns,
and its way of making decisions?

It is important that public officials be aware of and work closely with

community influentials, those who help to mold opinions. This hardly nullifies the
need to contact and work with as many citizens as possible; but without the
support of the leadership, projects may fail. One study of communities has
shown that Vie proponents of change in community issues won less than one-
third of the time without the united support of acknowledged leaders. On the
other hand, with the support of these leaders, proponents of change won two-
thirds of the time.

Exploring the variety of possible methods for identifying community

leaders (e.g., the use of questionnaires, interviews, study of decisions) suggests
ways of studying other aspects of community life. Similar methods may be used
to study' the composition of the population and the role of business leaders,
ethnic populations, religious groups, and so on. We use leadership as one
element in a community study.

Another troublesome aspect of leadership is this question: Who represents

a community? In a broader sense, the question is: Can any person or group truly
represent a community? Because in a sense no one can represent others,
providing every citizen the opportunity to participate avoids endorsing leaders
or the problem of identifying those who conceivably may represent an area or
a sizeable number of the residents. At the very least if some citizens are to be
"representatives," they should be elected by their peers and not selected by
someone outside the group.

For public Officials, some of these points are bound to cause difficulties.
Leaders may change from time to time or from issue to issue. Perhaps leaders
change because of neighborhood dissatisfaction with previous leaders or
because of the high transiency in urban neighborhoods. So while officials
certainly desire to designate or work with one or several representative citizens
or with a representative group, this is seldom possible. No one resident may
represent citizens on all issues, and even those who claim to represent may be
spuriously making that claim. The Officials must be accountable to all citizens.
While they may frequently negotiate with the leaders, they should always be
open to others, to evolving leaders, and especially to the indigenous leaders.
This is one reason why elected community leaders offer a partial solution to the
problem of representativeness."

32
 LESSON V – COMMUNICATING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction

This lesson relates the concept of accountability to communication. The

public official who is trying to be accountable will keep citizens informed about
plans and proposals, decisions, and progress in achieving goals. The official will
use various communication devises: radio, television, published reports, and
letters.

Two-way communication is necessary for accountability. This means that

the official not only sends messages to the public but in return, receives their
messages. When citizens do make suggestions, criticisms, or requests, the
accountable official must respond quickly and appropriately, Feedback is an
essential part of the process.

Several means of communication are discussed: newsletters and similar

publications, newspapers and television, telephones, and letters. Not only
officials but citizens and their groups can utilize these means, so the suggestions
are generally valid for citizens too. It should not be forgotten that citizens must
communicate their ideas promptly and accurately to the officials. In a time
when the public tends to mistrust and resist advertising and public relations
efforts, both groups must take precautions to ensure that the messages sent are
genuine and that the messages are received without distortion. Several
examples of effective communication are presented. A final section discusses
the accountability of the media. Because of their impact on municipal policy-
making, the press, radio, and television services must provide an adequate and
unbiased supply of news and information to the public.

 THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Most of us have played the game of "Gossip." Players sit in a circle; one
member starts a simple message around the circle; each participant repeats to
a neighbor on one side exactly what he/she thinks was said by the neighbor on
the other side. The end results are often hilarious. What started as "Mary has on
a pretty dress" may end up as "His honor is in great distress."

In real life failures of communication may be serious. Citizens leave a

public meeting believing the officials have promised to build a new road. What
the officials said (or meant to say) was "As soon as we can find the money we
will certainly consider building a new road." But the officials have carefully
hedged any promise. First, no resources are presently available for any roads,
and, second, the proposed new road will be one of several that will be
considered. When failure of communication, such as in either of these
examples, occurs, mistrust and disillusionment may develop, probably on both
sides.

33
 Communication is directly related to public accountability. The public
official who is accountable uses a variety of communication methods to keep
citizens informed and to give them the opportunity to participate. Some of
these means which are routinely utilized include:
 Reports to the electorate during political campaigns;
 Annual reports and others required by law;
 Reports to citizens (additional reports not necessarily required);
 Open meetings;
 Newspaper reports.

There are many other opportunities for officials to demonstrate their

concern for accountability. In this module we will focus mainly on these
communication vehicles: newsletters, radio and television, telephones, and
correspondence. In subsequent modules, we will discuss group meetings, face-
to-face contacts, and public assemblies.

Some public officials think of communicating only on a couple of

occasions: (1) when funds are being requested for a program or project; and
(2) when a project has been completed and a favorable response may be
anticipated.

Communication for accountability means communicating at other times

in the decision-making process and for other reasons. Four phases in program
planning and implementation are suggested when communication is
especially important:

1. The problem phase: What are the problems citizens report? What upsets
them? How do they judge the existing level of services and programs?
What do they want?

2. The planning phase: What goals and objectives can we agree upon?
What levels of services do citizens desire? What policies are desirable?
What issues do these raise?

3. The decision phase: What role do citizens have in deciding? How are
citizens wishes determined? What are the alternatives which are
discussed? What are the benefits and the costs of the alternatives?

4. The evaluation phase: Was the program successful? Did it solve

problems? What is citizen reaction to the program? Did it meet goals?

Effective communication at each of these stages at least gives citizens

the opportunity to participate. They are informed of the various aspects of the
decisions which must be made. They are kept informed of progress toward a
decision. Without such information they can hardly participate meaningfully.
The official who does not communicate is blocking any meaningful

34
participation and cannot be considered "accountable." But what is
communication? And more important, what is effective communication?

Communication is often pictured as a process including four elements:

Certainly if any of these elements is missing there can be no communication.

The public official is often in the role of sender. The official intends to
communicate to the citizens what the government expects to do. The mayor
announces the opening of a new complaint center. The news is sent out by
press release, newspaper accounts, word of mouth, interdepartmental memos,
and a television interview. From the City Hall point-of-view, the message has
been sent.

But what was the message? We have seen how messages can get
distorted. Furthermore, in a day when citizens teed to place little confidence in
government; the message may appear to be something other than a straight-
forward announcement.

Few adults today will consider an announcement as "truth." In the

preceding example, officials intended to communicate a "message" which
should transmit the information that a complaint center has opened. Some
citizens may see the announcement as part of a political campaign for the
mayor's re-election. Others may see is as a public relations gimmick or as
propaganda. Because they distrust advertising, more of the public may feel
that "the mayor is blowing his/her own horn." Others may see the
announcement only as a "trial balloon"; that is, the administration is testing the
climate of public opinion and will subsequently decide whether or not to open
the center. In our example we assume that response is desired and anticipated
response that will be measured by visits to the center. But we recognize that
citizens may receive the announcement with a variety of meanings that will not
all be measured by such visits.

Another way of looking at a message is to analyze the content. Is the

message simply a collection of words, or facts; or is there information in the
message? Often what is intended to be information, or a meaningful

35
presentation, turns out to be just "data." For the uninitiated, stock market
quotations are only "data." But the stockholder receives information from such
a listing of stock prices. A buying or selling reaction to changes in price closes
the feedback loop and clearly indicates that the message got through.

The receivers, obviously, vary also. Was the message relevant? Were they
in a position to hear? Was the choice of media for the announcement geared
to the correct constituency? For example, a message of interest to Black voters
should probably appear in the Black-published newspaper, not the more
generally circulated metropolitan daily. Unless the intended receiver gets the
message, communication has not occurred.

Effective communication requires that the sender get affirmation that the
message got through. There are many ways of testing this. Letters and
telephones calls, personal contacts: some specific response which is requested,
or the number of people who show up to attend the opening may indicate
some measure of reception. The city may conduct a sample survey to ascertain
how many heard the message and how many may attend the opening. A less
positive response may be that in the next election the mayor is turned out of
office!

This total process of communication may be labelled "two-way

communication." An interaction' wherein two people send messages and
respond meaningfully is two-way communication. If only one person talks and
there is no response, presumably only "one-way communication" is occurring.
Two-way communication may be evident in a debate between two politicians,
whereas a speech from a podium may be only one-way communication. The
wise public official will seek to maintain two-way communication even if the
results may be painful at times.

A special obstacle to two-way communications is apparent when officials

have different educational and/or cultural backgrounds from that of their
constituents. Sometimes communities are composed of a variety of racial,
ethnic, or other cultural groups. A college in the community may bring many
youths to the scene who seem to speak a different language. How do public
officials get their messages accurately through to the citizens when
interpretations of words can differ?

Feedback is especially important when people have different

backgrounds. Sometimes the message may have to be translated into another
language; in New York City and Miami, official messages must be Conveyed in
Spanish as well as English. The official should take pains to see that any
messages dispatched are in as simple English as can be written. Messages
should be reviewed by several persons to make sure they say what is intended.
Finally, the solution may be to retain someone from the particular group in
question to carry the message personally and to translate the message and its

36
 intent to the people with different backgrounds. Even this process should be
tested by feedback: Are folks responding to the message? Is the message
getting through accurately?19

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Draw, for your own use, a diagram of the communication process,

showing the four necessary elements or ingredients. Then using the format
and arrangement of the diagram; describe a case from real life to
illustrate the full communication process.

2. Indicate, by examples; the difference between two-way communication

and one-way communication.

3. Differentiate in your own words among: propaganda, public relations,

advertising, and political campaign rhetoric?

4. Suggest several ways in which politicians may judge whether their

messages are ''getting through" and whether they are getting response.

5. What means are suggested as ways in which officials can communicate

with groups who have different educational, ethnic, racial, or other
backgrounds?

 Methods of Communication

There are many means of communicating with the public, and to name
a few there is newsletters and similar publications; media, especially
newspapers, radio, and television; the telephone, electronic messages, the
social media; and letters. These are emphasized because they are the most
used and they reach large numbers of people. Other means not covered may
include: posters, dramatic events, information centers; coffeehouses, films,
community bulletin boards, and pamphlets.

These skills of communication are also useful for citizens and citizen groups.
It is vital that citizens communicate their needs; their ideas; and their comments
to public officials. While public assemblies are often viewed as the primary
vehicle for ascertaining public views, in reality much more communication
occurs informally via electronic messaging, telephone calls, letters, personal
contacts, or the media. Citizens who anticipate feedback from officials must
take pains to be sure their messages get through accurately and in time for
appropriate action.

19 Ibid

37
  Effects of Social Media on Communication Skills

The emergence of social media has created a new avenue for facilitating
daily information and communication needs. As technology grows and
expands our range of communication, social media is becoming a vital tool for
daily social interaction. It creates opportunity for people to interact with each
other in a way that is both helpful and essential to socially motivate people. The
rapid fire quick communication style that captivates the millennials and other
generation has shifted our conversations from ‘face-to-face’ instances to
‘through –the-screen’ ones.

Social Media is described as the collection of online communication

channels dedicated to community based input, interaction, content sharing
and collaboration. Some of the commonly known communication websites are
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. With the help of this websites
people can share memories, reconnect with friends, plan events, and
communicate almost instantaneously. The social media has positive as well as
negative impacts on communication skills.

Social networks have become the central facilitator for daily

communication with peers, family and acquaintances. It is affecting our
relationships and decreases the quality of inter-personal communication.
Another impairment of communication skills caused by the extensive use of
social media platform is the impoverishment of language. Using messengers’
people often use shortened versions of words in order to type and deliver their
messages as quickly as possible. Shortened versions like “k”, “ttyl”, “ur”, “der”,
“gr8”,”cu”,”tc” and so on completely ruins the grammar and syntax. It also
develops the use of slang terms and sometimes people tend to forget that they
are neglecting the beauty of language when they are online busy with the
social media.

Social media and online communication is believed to be having adverse

effect on social skills and communication among adolescents. Long ago, the
time when social media did not exist and social communication and interaction
were the only way of communication. In the era of technology, social media
interactions now dominate both online and offline conversations. In a society
where interacting and over-sharing is the norm, you are probably more likely to
speak to friends and family through electronic devices than face-to-face. Often
at events or parties, guests are attached to their smart phones twitting or
texting, but no one is truly engaging or interacting with the people around
them. As more generations are born into the social age, social media will
continue to be the favored communication form among young people.
However, this shift may begin to affect their ability to properly communicate in
person with peers.

38
 “Communication is constantly evolving; some people are used to seeing
their friend’s online avatar as if the face”. There is a greater desire to share with
other people you barely know, than actually hanging out with friends and
making memories. At the end of the day, nothing can replace face-to-face
conversation and interaction. Despite the explosion of online endorsements
and social media dialogue between individuals and brands, researchers have
found word-of-mouth exchanges and in-depth conversations are still most
influential.

Whether or not people want to accept it, social media has several
negative impacts on their daily lives. We cannot deny the fact that social
platform is very helpful providing news, gossips, and to keep in touch with friends
and family, but we cannot afford it to become the focal point of our lives. The
access that people have on the internet and social media specifically has
become too easy. It has made the language lazy and thus resulting people
uninterested in meeting others in person, which eliminates any chance of deep
and meaningful conversation. People have started losing their ability to
communicate efficiently, which is a testament, to what kind of total control
social media has over their lives. Overall, social media can be beneficial if used
wisely and in the proper proportion. So, it is easy to conclude that the negative
impact of social media far outweighs any benefits that they may provide to
society at this juncture.20

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Comprehensively discuss how the social media affected your way of

communication with other people.

2. How the “Social Media” is being utilized by government agencies and

employees in the public sector in general in communicating their
activities relative to their works.

20 https://theknowledgereview.com/effects-social-media-communication-skills/

39
 LESSON VI – MEETING WITH CITIZENS/ORGANIZATIONS

Introduction

Face-to-face contacts are defined as personal relations between to three

or four individuals and without the use of a communications device (computer,
radio, television, newsletter) and without a formal structure (sermon, speech,
drama).

Public officials can demonstrate their accountability by arranging face-

to-face contacts with their constituencies. Probably no other process is so
effective as a direct meeting by officials of people in their homes, at their
workplaces, on the streets, in churches, labor halls, or other sites. Face-to-face
contacts are also important for citizens' groups, so several means of keeping in
personal touch with neighbors are reviewed.

Several ideas on "canvassing" give specific advice on meeting people in

a variety of ways. While written from a particular political position, the advice
should be generally useful. The term "canvassing," which is used in the excerpt
included in this module, is seen as one fruitful form of face-to-face contacts;
canvassing can be used by officials or by citizens. Most successful politicians
depend heavily on face-to-face contacts.

When time or other constraints make it difficult or impossible for an official

or a citizens' group to make personal contacts, they may want to utilize a
professionally-trained community organizer.

 MEETING WITH CITIZENS

The most effective politicians - that is, the ones who get elected and re-
elected are generally the candidates who have made the most personal
contacts. They have met people face-to-face: in their homes, at their work
places, on the streets, or in public gatherings where they still can speak
personally.

By face-to-face is meant individual personal contact between an official

and one or more constituents where communication is direct and unfiltered,
where questions can be asked by either party, and where the participants can
be said to "know" each other, at least knowing each other's name and interests.
We exclude meetings with more than four persons, or contacts by social media,
television, radio, newsletters, and so on. Also, face-to-face implies more of a
personal relationship than contact via a speech, sermon, or other formal

40
presentation. Face-to-face contacts may occur in many places, those
suggested above, or in supermarkets, clubs, homes, or other settings. The largest
number of persons present would probably be four, although at a "cafe" or
similar home gathering there might meet five or six persons. Face-to-face
contacts are a valuable exercise of two-way communication between the
official and constituents.

The wise politicians, once elected; maintain face-to-face contacts so

they can have a "feel" for the constituency. They know that letters, speeches,
campaign literature and other means do not provide for the two-way
communication that is vital. Public officeholders, elected or employed, can use
the same process to know more about the citizens they serve. To be
accountable means to be available, listening, learning, and responsive. Of
course, officials are too often overburdened with responsibilities, busy from
dawn to dusk. It seems hard to find time to meet the citizens. If talking to
individual members of the public is viewed as crucial to one's job, however, time
will be found to leave the office and talk to people.

Why this concern for meeting directly with people? The primary purpose in
meeting folks face-to-face is to get to know them and to be able to understand
their problems, interests, ideas, concerns, goals. The first rule for a public speaker
is "Know Your Audience." A similar first rule for officials should be: "Know Your
People."

Another reason is the opposite side of that maxim: the citizens get to know
the public officials. No longer is service being rendered by a faceless
bureaucrat. The citizens can say: "Mr. Cruz is in charge of our water supply"; or,
"Miss Del Rosario handles my real estate matters."

A third justification is the possibility of resolving difficulties and

misunderstandings early and informally. Sometimes serious problems are
discovered at an early stage and can be eliminated by discussion or
negotiation without any formal complaint or litigation.

Another reason for talking personally is to get ideas and uncover attitudes
on issues. People are always pleased to be asked for their opinions. Talking face-
to-face and being asked for advice and opinions can be very flattering.

An example of the value of face-to-face contacts may be drawn from a

recent election. The winner was a long-time political figure who for years
attended parties, wakes, bingo games, league contests, weddings, funerals,
and all manner of such events. People knew him by his first name, and he knew
many of them personally. While his performance as a municipal official could
warrant election to a higher position, his many contacts with voters certainly
helped him win. It was generally concluded that major candidate's extensive
and personal familiarity with the community was responsible for his decisive

41
victory. Face-to-face contacts are another means of offering accountability to
citizens. The personality, the record, the commitments, the concerns of the
public official are directly exposed to the scrutiny of citizens. Questioning and
answering can take place. The official indicates responsiveness and
responsibility to, constituents when meeting with them face-to-face.

A way of distinguishing face-to-face contacts from other forms of

communication is to describe this form as providing "instant feedback." The
official receives immediate indications of support, distrust, differences of
opinion, or interest. No other form of relationship provides immediate response,
and some forms (such as questionnaires) may take weeks or months before the
attitudes of constituents may be known. (And there is always a question
concerning those persons who did not complete the questionnaire; that is, were
they different in some way from those who did respond?)

 Preparation: Officials should know something about the people they plan
to meet. Is this an ethnic community? Are folks mostly members of one
religious group? What is the economic level and the educational level?
What are some of the issues which might be raised? Officials should have
clearly in mind what they want to know, why they are visiting, what they
are willing to promise, and what they are supposed to do. They must be
wary of promising more than they can deliver, and they should be
relatively confident of their mission.

 Approach: Listening to people with empathy is considered one of the

best ways of getting acquainted. Be prepared to listen carefully. What is
the person telling you? Is the message getting across? If not, why not? Are
differences in economic or educational achievement hindering
communication? Are racial or ethnic differences confusing the
meaning?

The objective is not to argue or even to put forward the "official position."
Most often, especially in first contacts, the objective should be simply to listen. If
you do not agree, state: "I see your position" or "Yes, you do have a point there."
An unwillingness to listen may turn off the speakers; or they may try to state what
they think the official wants to hear. "Oh yes, we like this neighborhood. No,
there are no difficulties with public services."

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Define the terms "face-to-face contacts" and "listening."

2. What benefits can an official gain from face-to-face contacts with

citizens?

42
 3. Compare and contrast the terms: "face-to-face contacts" and "two-way
communication."

4. Why is "listening" so important and what is "empathetic listening"?

 MEETING WITH ORGANIZATIONS

This topic discusses examples of groups which an official is likely to

contact. They range from advisory groups, perhaps even formed by the official,
to militant peoples' organizations whose purpose is to wrest power from officials.
Each example of a group in this module can also be analyzed as we did earlier:
by origin of group, objectives, strategy and tactics, and so on.

Citizens groups adopt all kinds of structures, postures, tactics, and sizes. A
group may range in size from 2 or 3 interested citizens to major pressure groups.
The group may be a highly-knit, well- organized pressure group or a loose
coalition of individuals or units with relatively vague objectives. The group may
be friendly to public officials or it may assume a confrontation stance.
Objectives may be clearly stated, or the real purpose of the group may be
hidden. Frequently, citizens may protest a particular action but may not be
clear about what is desired in its place. Some organizations seek only a minor
change while others are looking toward control of decisions. Some groups have
been formed mainly for advice and consultation perhaps for token
participation while others are planning-oriented with the desire to improve a
community through major projects. Public officials should understand the
various types of groups they contact and what their objectives are Officials
should also formulate an approach to meeting each group.

 Accountable Officials with Citizen Groups

Given the wide variety of citizen groups, their diverse positions, and
citizen's frequent hostility, or mistrust of public officials, it is no wonder that
meeting with citizen groups is often disliked by officials. But handled with the
proper preparation and Planning, such meetings can prove beneficial to both
citizens and public officials.

An interested group of citizens can provide an official with information

obtainable nowhere else. This is especially true of attitude: What are the citizens
thinking? What are their concerns? Would they like a new road, a swimming
pool, or lower taxes?

The official can help citizens become aware of problems faced by the
municipality and difficulties of which they are unaware. If the official is
successful, the citizens may lend their support to help win particular issues, or, at

43
least, they may become less hostile. Meeting with citizens can be good public
relations for officials. Better relationships and individual acquaintances can
assist the official in this and future problems.

Certainly there are costs as well as benefits to meeting with citizens. The
official may create more hostility rather than calm the voters. The press may
emphasize the confrontational nature of the meeting, finding conflict where
none exists. Such meetings take their toll of time, energy, and goodwill.
Frequently, there are technical or cost considerations which prevent the official
for doing what citizens desire. Subordinates may resent an official spending time
with citizens and, worse making commitment to them.

When officials meet with citizens in groups, they can use the following
suggestions that may help make the meeting meaningful and constructive for
all participants and avoid destructive efforts and effects.

1. Officials should not wait until issues arise or conflict is inevitable to meet
with citizens. Officials should attempt to establish cordial relationships with
citizen groups early.
2. Let the media know what you are doing and why. Make it clear that you,
as an official, are meeting with citizens by choice. Seek to emphasize the
positive aspects of the meeting, and avoid any resemblance of conflict.
Hopefully, make this a joint information release to demonstrate that
officials are not seeking to grab the credit for the meeting.
3. Establish the setting of the meeting so it will clearly be a meeting of
equals. Avoid raised platforms- lecterns, or head tables. Speak directly to
citizens.
4. If possible, meet with group leaders to set up a mutually agreeable
agenda and/or format for the meeting as well as ground rules for the
conduct of the meeting.
5. Attempt to keep the meeting on a dialogue basis. Avoid prepared
speeches or a hearing type of format.
6. Don't speak over the heads of the audience by using technical terms or
jargon. Follow the maxim: "Never underestimate the intelligence of
citizens but don't overestimate the knowledge of people."
7. Answer questions openly and as fairly as possible.
8. In case of opposing views, show how' you arrived at the particular
decision by reviewing your facts (and other supporting information or
groups) and your reasoning.
9. Use enough facts to support your position but never try to drown the
citizens w:th an overabundance of data.
10. Recognize that everyone wants an opportunity to express a viewpoint
and that some may use the meeting to let off steam.
11. Help the citizens who are present to understand the limits to government
provision of services and also the need to share government facilities and

44
 services among all sections of the community. State the official's
willingness to work cooperatively to attain the goals of the group.
12. If the meeting seems to be moving toward hostility or worse, violence,
attempt to adjourn the meeting, but don't let this be seen as your attempt
to avoid listening to all sides of an issue.
13. If the meeting has moved toward a consensus, seek to have this
expressed, perhaps in the form of a motion.
14. Consider the time and place of the next meeting. Indicate continued
willingness to meet with citizens.
15. Arrange for a summary of the meeting to be made available for those
who attended and for interested others who were not able to attend.
16. Be sure that responsibilities are assigned and accepted so that all activity
does not cease before the next meeting.
17. Agree on an evaluative session in which officials and citizens can discuss
what the meeting accomplished.

No one wants to waste time in meetings. Citizens want to feel needed

and important; they want to believe their opinions are heard and utilized. The
officials can help give a sense of credibility by presenting real issues to be
decided: "We need your opinion on this..." or "You can help us decide whether
to select option A or option B." Some meetings with citizens turn out to be
unfruitful because officials present facts but never make it clear to citizens just
how their participation can be helpful. Both citizens and officials benefit when
it is clear what problems exist, what policy options are available, and how
citizen input will be utilized. It should also be made clear how much latitude the
officials will give to citizen opinions, and at what point other considerations, such
as costs, technical restrictions, federal regulations, or other competing interests
take precedence over citizen views.

Meetings with citizen groups should be informal and informative with

emphasis on two-way communication. We see them as on one end of a
participation process continuum with more formal public hearings on the other
and with public forums (or meetings) in between.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Where should officials seek to meet with citizens?

2. Summarize the suggestions about meeting with citizens into an essay.

3. What characteristics and values should officials express when meeting

with citizens?

45
LESSON VII – PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

Introduction

The most visible form of citizen participation and accountability is

undoubtedly the public hearing. In the conduct of the hearing, officials are
exposed to public scrutiny; their attitudes toward people and programs and
their behavior are all observable. Responsiveness to constituencies will be
apparent. But there are other less formal gatherings than public hearings in
which the officials' attitudes and behaviors are observable. In this lesson, we will
discuss three types of large public assemblies of which the public hearing is just
one. While they differ in purpose and formality, the principles for planning,
organizing, conducting, and following-up will be similar.

 THREE TYPES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

1. Public hearings are a form of public assembly distinguished by legal

requirements and structure. Public hearings are usually required by law--
probably by the particular legislation which authorizes a program. They
are highly structured and formal in conduct; they have established rules
regarding testimony and generally result in an official, reviewable record.
Because of these structures, a minimum number of hearings is scheduled,
generally only one prior to implementation of a project, but perhaps two
or three if required by law. Communication tends to be one-way with little
opportunity for dialogue or feedback. The impact of citizen participation
can only be determined by subsequent official actions.

2. Public meetings are less formal, unrequired, and may be more responsive
to citizen input. Because they are less formal they encourage dialogue
and feedback. Questions can be asked and answers provided without
the restraints of a legal cross-examination. Meetings can be held at
different times for varying purposes and, therefore, may be scheduled
frequently. Public meetings should be held during several of the phases
of a program: 1) problem discussion; 2) goal formulation; 3) alternatives
planning; 4) decision-making (this could be a legal public hearing); 5)
implementation; and 6) evaluation. Certainly the more informal
participation engendered in a public meeting, as contrasted with a
public hearing, fits all phases of the planning process and gives citizens
the opportunity to present their views and receive reaction from officials.
Meetings may be called by either an official agency or by citizens. Very
often the meeting will be scheduled to discuss a problem or citizen
concern before a specific project is proposed. Consequently, the whole
tenor of the meeting can be more informal and more likely to be directed
by the citizens. Some public meetings may be called and chaired by an
agency; others may be called by citizens who can then plan the agenda
and chair the meeting.

46
 3. Public forums or conferences are public assemblies scheduled primarily
for the exchange of information between citizens and officials. An official
agency may plan a forum to present it, ideas on a project for a
community, or it may jointly sponsor a public conference with a citizens'
group to hear citizen reactions to ongoing programs in the area. The
atmosphere should be informal with two-way communication stressed.
While some citizens may be prepared for the discussions in a forum or
conference as a result of previous workshops or small group meetings
which they attended, others in attendance may be new to the ideas
being presented and, therefore, must be provided with information
before they can make a significant contribution. Forums differ from public
hearings and meetings in that their primary focus is on information. An
example of a "forum" is another meeting on crime held in a city
neighborhood. This forum included a panel composed of a police official;
a judge, a probation officer, and a prison executive. Each was asked to
give opinions as to the causes of crime and possible solutions. Citizens
asked questions and expected responses from officials; at the same
forum the officials were able to question citizens. Two-way
communication is a prerequisite for forums and conferences.

In summary, we may say that assemblies are held, primarily, for the
following reasons:

 Public Hearings - to comply with legal requirements

 Public Meetings - to receive citizen input
 Public Forums and Conference - to exchange information

 PURPOSES AND TIMING FOR PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

Public hearings, meetings, and forums and conferences may be held for
a variety of purposes. Even mandated public hearings may serve purposes
beyond complying with the legal requirement. Briefly, some of the purposes
may be grouped into the following categories:

 Legal - referring mainly to the formal public hearing, although,

increasingly, legislation mandates more citizen participation than just one
hearing. The requirements say little about the effects of a hearing, the
objective of holding it, or the impact on legislation, but they do require
that a formal, well-advertised public hearing be held before subsequent
action can be authorized.

 Educational information - presenting facts, proposals, plans, or other

mainly from an official agency to the public.

47
  Fact-finding - learning facts, perceptions, proposals from the citizens.
problems.

 Ascertaining attitudes of citizens - like fact-finding, learning from the

citizens what they think of programs, problems, official, implementation
of projects, etc.

 Strategy development - working with- citizens to agree on a strategy for

cooperation; for carrying out programs, or for other matters.

 Ventilation - occasionally meetings are planned (but more likely just

happen) to let citizens vent their feelings of anger, frustration, and
disappointment in front of public officials. Hopefully the display "clears the
air" and the groups can then work together. Public officials should not be
unduly alarmed at "noisy public meetings"; frequently they are necessary
when citizens cannot understand the long delays or the mistakes of
bureaucracy.

 Sounding Board - public assemblies can be valuable to officials for testing

ideas and trying out-proposed programs or changes in policy on a group
of citizens. The purpose generally should be made clear beforehand. This
is something like a "sneak preview" of a movie, testing it with a public
audience before it is shown generally.

 Strategic - sometimes meetings are deliberately staged to counter two

competitive groups or to work out cooperation between two or more
neighborhoods.

The timing of meetings depends, to some extent, on the purpose. A

meeting called to discuss problems and issues obviously must come prior to a
discussion of alternative programs. A final official hearing can only be held after
considerable planning and discussion, but public hearings can also be held at
various times in a planning process to corroborate decisions and progress.

The major emphasis here is that public assemblies should not be

scheduled "by the book" or in a rigid, predetermined fashion. Meetings should
be frequent and should be called as needed by either citizens or officials when
the meeting is considered necessary or highly desirable.

Timing is very important and frequently is the worst-planned element in

public meetings. Some meetings are held so early that citizens are not
adequately notified of the proposal or informed of its consequences; very few
citizens attend and those who do may be overwhelmed. More meetings
(probably a goodly number of official public hearings) are held too late.
Decisions have already been arranged, commitments made, and work may

48
even have started. Citizens may attend but find their voices too late and too
limited to change decisions. If several public meetings are scheduled during the
continuing phases of planning and if one of these is "official," citizen
participation is encouraged and developed. A well-planned, appropriately
timed public hearing "fits" into a total public involvement operation. Without
such a continuing operation the one official public hearing should be carefully
scheduled to reach the largest possible number of informed, concerned
citizens.

Case Studies

a. The mayor of a city wants to discover whether citizens are more

concerned about crime or a possible raise in taxes. For what purpose
might an assembly be called? _____________________________
b. New regulations have emanated from national government, requiring a
change in garbage and trash collection locally. This will require citizens to
change their habits of throwing all trash, garbage, bottles, etc. in one
container. The purpose for a meeting would be _____________________.
c. Three communities each want the proposed new elementary school
located within their boundaries. The school superintendent has an "ideal
location" central to all three areas. The superintendent might call a
meeting for purposes.
d. Neighborhood X has become very much upset about burglaries within its
residential area. The Mayor and the Chief of Police r decide to hold an
assembly with the main purpose being______________________.
e. The Public Works Department has a new approach to rebuilding city
streets. It will cost less in but could cause inconvenience to citizens. A
meeting might be used for ________________________.
f. After months of planning, a neighborhood rehabilitation plan has been
worked out with residents and agency staff. The Board now must
schedule a _______________________ to meet ____________________
requirements before the agency can proceed further.
g. The proposed new community boards have not been approved yet. The
Mayor, Councilmen, and citizens have differing ideas as to the number
of community boards. A coalition of citizens decides to call an assembly
for the purpose of the aim probably is to _________________________.
h. Before the coalition of citizens (see g above) called its assembly, it had
convened a series of meetings in neighborhoods to ascertain what the
residents perceived as boundaries. The purpose of these meetings could
be called ________________________.

49
 LESSON VIII – EVALUATING ACCOUNTABILITY, PARTICIPATION,
AND DECENTRALIZATION

Introduction

Evaluating activities such as citizen participation and decentralization is

difficult; there are no widely-accepted techniques for judging the effectiveness
of such programs. Accountability is even more difficult to evaluate with one
possible exception: re-election (or failure to win re-election) may indicate a
measure of accountability. But considering the many variables which may
affect the outcome of an election, this one indicator may also be suspect.

 THE NEED FOR EVALUATION

Evaluation is a necessary part of the decision-making process. After

planning, approving, and implementing, an official should test the results of
programs; otherwise, useless programs may be carried on for years, while
worthwhile projects are postponed because of lack of funds.

Furthermore, even within the same program or policy, there may be

several ways of achieving the same objectives. It is necessary, therefore, to
have some means of assessing which Will work the best, which program is more
efficient in terms of use of resources, and what programs are achievable given
existing staff and other resources.

Evaluative efforts generally concern themselves with two major

dimensions: effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness can mean, simply,
getting the job done. It usually relates to achievement of objectives. A program
is effective if it accomplishes the objectives for which it was created.
Effectiveness, consequently, has little or no relationship to costs, but efficiency
does.

Efficiency refers to the cost of getting a job done. This means that cost and
effectiveness must both be considered in determining efficiency. For example,
if a program fails to achieve its objectives (i.e., if it is not effective), then that
program cannot be considered efficient even if the cost of the program is low.
Or if several competing programs each succeed in achieving their objectives
(which in this example are the same for each program), then the program with
the lowest cost will be considered to be the most efficient because it uses fewer
resources (costs) to accomplish the same results. Another way of referring to
efficiency, as' this discussion would suggest, is to call this dimension
"cost/effectiveness" which similarly relates achievement to its cost.

Both concepts, effectiveness and efficiency, create some difficulties in

certain circumstances. Sometimes effectiveness is hard to evaluate because a
few objectives are met, others not reached, and a few partially attained.

50
Similarly, efficiency is difficult to evaluate if different programs result in slightly
different results, if objectives are only partly met or if there is no similar program
for comparison.

In the following section we shall look at evaluative measures. These are

almost entirely effectiveness measures; that is, they test whether or not
objectives are achieved; the costs are not considered. The word "evaluation"
implies a judgement or a personal testing as to the worthwhileness and
desirability of a program, policy, or project. All of us are formally making
judgements (evaluating) all the time as indicated by such statements as: this
tastes delicious; that is a better buy; this machine is constructed more sturdily; it
is warmer today. So evaluation means making a value judgement with little or
no research or scientific backing.

When techniques of research are applied to evaluation, we call the

process "evaluative research." Increasingly more sophisticated procedures are
being developed for "evaluative research," including statistical formulas, control
groups, social experiments, and goal attainment measures. We shall be
concerned in this module mainly with simpler, judgmental, analyses of
effectiveness. Evaluative measures suggested here are non-statistical and,
generally, not capable of detailed analysis. Hopefully, sometime in the future
more objective, carefully-scaled measures may be developed.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Explain, in your own words the difference between evaluation and

evaluative research; then give an example of each.

2. What are some difficulties an official might encounter in trying to measure

the efficiency of a program?

 EVALUATION MEASURES

Program and policies can be measured in different ways. Six approaches

seem appropriate in looking at accountability, although exactly which
approach is suitable for a particular effort may still have to be determined.
Evaluation procedures should be agreed upon prior to the beginning of a
program. Each of these six measures will be described briefly in this section and
then applied to participation, decentralization, and accountability in the next
section:

51
1. Input measures refer primarily to the amount of resources applied to a
program; they give little evidence of results. There are situations when
input can be easily measured but output or results are hard to measure.
If a child wants a lollipop and we pay 25 pesos for one, the input is
calculated in peso. The satisfaction the child, gets is difficult to measure
although we can be relatively certain that the child is pleased. In other
situations, input measures are not so validly used. In education, for
example, teacher-pupil ratios, amount budgeted for books, or capital
investment in buildings cannot indicate whether children will be enabled
to read, write, or solve arithmetic problems.

2. Process measures; similar to input measures, only indicate that all steps
have been taken which should result in the desired effects. In our
education example, it would be important that children be exposed to
teachers, books, and classrooms, that they attend school regularly, and
that accepted processes of teaching be undertaken. Again there is no
guarantee that being involved in the teaching process will result in
children learning to read. The difference, then, between input measures
and process measures is that, while input measures focus on the resources
made available, process measures are concerned with what is done with
the resources.

3. Output measures do suggest results. They are direct measures of the

effects of the program. For education; measures might be: grade level
reading scores, reading abilities in words per minute, or comprehension
test results. Indicators are not measures of output but figures which
indirectly suggest output measures. Many social statistics are called
"indicators" for, while they do not directly measure some quality of the
situation, one can infer some social change from them. From the number
(or percentage) of high school graduates we infer "education" and
literacy. From the number of suicides, we may judge the quality of life.
Indicators, then, are a form of output measures but do not directly
measure the attribute under examination.

4. Performance measures relate output measures to pre-established

objectives. Let.us take the matter of reading scores. An output measure
would provide simply the number and percentage of children reading at
grade level, for example, 300 children or 75% of a school. But a pre-
determined objective may have been 80% of the school population
reading at grade level. Thus, this example suggests that performance has
not been up to expectation.

Let us use one hypothetical example of performance in relation to citizen

participation. A process of citizen involvement has commenced with
appropriate input of staff resources, dollars, interest, and so forth. There is

52
 an output: citizens are attending meetings; some groups have formed.
These output measures have reached the objectives established for the
project. Still, the level of participation is insufficient to be meaningful and
to accomplish changes in the plans and programs. We can say the
performance is satisfactory, but still something is lacking. This leads to the
next measure: adequacy of performance.

5. Adequacy-of- performance is similar to performance, but relates output

measures to some universal or accepted standards. In the matter of
reading scores discussed above, the standard is inherent in the measure
since one can say that all children Should be reading at grade level. On
this basis, performance is below standard if only three out of four children
are reading at grade level. The adequacy of performance is
unsatisfactory.

In a more positive sense, the eradication of smallpox in the world

demonstrates adequacy of performance in this project of public health.
Similarly, efforts in eliminating polio seem to have reached an adequate
level of performance. But failure to eliminate hunger in the world reveals
less than adequate performance in feeding people or helping them
become self-sustaining in food production.

Adequacy of performance tests outputs against an accepted standard

and not simply against a project's objectives. Unfortunately, there are
virtually no universal standards in the areas of citizen participation,
decentralization or accountability.

6. Impact measures are extremely important because they suggest the

difference that a program or policy actually makes. The impact of the so-
called "Green Revolution" on worldwide hunger is being debated: in the
same way, the impact of the War on Poverty will be questioned for years.
The question, then, is not whether there were positive output or
performance measures but what changes these make in some social
situation. Impact measures influence other social situations beyond the
scope of the particular program. So a reduction in air pollution in a city
may increase health, decrease absenteeism, reduce hospital admissions,
and lead as well to increased traffic safety. Some of these may be
intended results or impacts of an environmental program whenever
others may be unexpected.

Impact remains a somewhat ambiguous term. We might define it further

by talking of "the impact on society" or "the impact on the community."
Some authorities may call this "goal-free evaluation," which considers the
effects of a program which were not necessarily intended or were
broader than the programmatic objectives. Certainly one must look
beyond the stated goals to the larger effects upon a city or a society.

53
 We have not specifically discussed subjective results. This refers to a type
of evaluation which assesses the feelings of citizens toward a program.
Without any specific measure, clients or citizens may judge a program to
be "good" or to accomplish some worthwhile ends. This, frequently, is an
"impact-type" evaluation. Many parents and other observers rated the
"Head Start" programs as desirable even if careful studies and objective
measure tended to show little positive benefits to children. The program
has continued because of the "gut feelings" of those who participated.
Strictly speaking feelings are not "measures," but they can add support for
a program.

Together, all of these measures provide a variety of available means for

testing policies or programs.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Describe the six possible measures or approaches to evaluation.

2. Suggest one application of each of the six evaluation measures from your
own experience or from other readings.

 BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

In the preceding section we examined six approaches to evaluation

almost exclusively from the viewpoint of effectiveness. We asked: how can we
determine whether certain programs and policies get the job done. We wanted
to know if objectives were met, standards reached, and what impact resulted.
In this section we discuss the benefits and costs of some relevant programs. This
exercise focuses more on measures of efficiency than effectiveness.' Programs
will be compared on the basis of benefits and costs; not simply on the basis of
whether they do the job.

When decisions are shared with citizens or decentralized to staff members,

there will be observable benefits. We would expect, for example. fewer
complaints or protests about government, possibly a more smoothly operating
government, and greater satisfaction. While some benefits may be suggested,
there may also be obstacles, problems, and a drain on resources. Government
may not run more smoothly; in fact, a participatory government may engender
more conflict, demand more decisions to be made, and require more
conciliation. These we call "costs" from which it should be clear that we are not
talking solely about costs in dollar terms. Costs include problems, obstacles,

54
tensions, misunderstandings, and so on. Some other terms we might use instead
of benefits and costs are: advantages and disadvantages; functional and
dysfunctional consequences; plusses and minuses.

It is often difficult to state exactly what the advantages or disadvantages

of a program or policy might be, and it is hardly any easier to declare that
benefits exceed costs or vice versa. If everything could be put in terms of dollars
and cents, comparisons would be simplified. But benefits and costs; as we are
presenting them, may be in terms of social, emotional, political, or other results.

Below we suggest a few benefits and some costs of selected programs

related to participation, decentralization, or accountability. This is a simplified
"benefit/cost analysis." Officials may perform their own "benefit/cost analysis"
mentally, but we suggest actually preparing a chart which lists benefits on one
side, costs on the other. Such a chart at least begins the process of identifying
direct and indirect impacts of a program.

Benefits and Costs of Barangay Complaint Centers

(Sample)

Benefits Costs
Citizens can complain directly to a More complaints are received; more
city official; rather than grumble expenditures are required; some re-
about problems. quested expenditures may be
unbudgeted.

Citizens may point out major Subordinates object to handling

problems earlier than the complaints; complaints break
administration would have routine, making it difficult to plan
discovered them. ahead.

The mayor and other officials can Government may not be-able to
judge attitudes of citizens from the handle all the complaints.
number and type of complaints.

The opportunities for feedback from The administrator is faced with

citizens to government and vice additional units to oversee -and the
versa are increased. need for more coordination.

Good public relations are achieved.

LEARNING EXERCISE

Develop a benefit cost analysis of your own for a project/program.

55
 LESSON IX – ADMINISTERING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction

This lesson discusses some principles of administration related to citizen

participation and decentralization. In no way is it an attempt to discuss
administration in broad, general terms; We Will look at some of the particular
considerations which an administrator must understand when emphasizing
decentralization and citizen involvement.

These considerations will focus on three aspects of administrative

problems; First, there are requirements of the governmental unit itself which
should be met - matters such as recruiting and training employees to be
sensitive to issues of citizen participation. Second, decentralization procedures
will require more complex intragovernmental relationships. If the local
government is not the only functioning unit on the municipal level and
barangay or neighborhood offices exist with decision-making responsibilities
more coordinated and complex decisions are required. Third, some decisions
must be made in conjunction with citizens and not by officials alone. A hole
network of administrative relationships must be developed which comes to
conclusions about: How much weight will be given to citizen input as compared
with other inputs, such as costs, planning recommendations, etc.

 GOVERNANCE

It should be apparent that the governmental official who wants to be

accountable and to practice some elements of citizen participation and
decentralization cannot simply accept government as is and just begin
involving citizens. Some preparation must take place, and this is essential if the
aims of the official are to be realized and if accountability is to be achieved.

The first requisite is that the official be desirous of achieving a modicum

of participation and/or decentralization. The effort cannot be simply a public
relations effort or a half-hearted attempt to meet federal or other requirements.
This will quickly be recognized for what it is: a sham. Many well-meaning officials
continue to believe that citizens are to be served but not consulted. Yet, as we
have seen earlier, citizens are increasingly expecting to be involved in decisions
affecting their lives. Furthermore, national, as well legislation is mandating more
public involvement. An accountable official, too, recognizes that top-down
decisions are not always as effective or as acceptable as decisions reached
after consultation with the affected parties. Some government agencies, in
fact, have reached an impasse: no more highways, dams, or other projects will
be built unless solid citizen support is developed. For these reasons, the official
is well-advised to seek meaningful citizen involvement.

56
 The next requisite is determining the amount of effort to be devoted to
citizen participation and/or decentralization. While both are desirable, there is
a limit to how much time, how many resources, and how much personal effort
can be devoted to involving citizens. The answer, in part, is: enough effort and
resources must be expanded which will allow the job to get done and done
well. If a program is halted or threatened because of citizen opposition, as, for
example, a proposed nuclear power plant, the official would have to plan an
extensive program of citizen involvement to achieve even a chance of
implementation. The municipal government which has earned the respect of
residents may need fairly little additional effort to maintain its citizen
cooperation.

One way to determine whether citizens believe that adequate effort is

being directed toward involving them is to conduct an opinion survey. This may
be accomplished by officials polling selected citizens informally or by
distributing a more formal questionnaire and carefully analyzing the results. Such
surveys should give indications as to citizen attitudes, their satisfaction with
participation levels, or their desire for increased involvement. Care must be
taken to sample all parts of the community and, especially, groups which may
be more critical of government.

A third extremely important requisite for achieving accountability is the

recruiting, training, and supervision of employees who meet the public. Even if
top officials want participatory government, other employees can thwart this
desire. A discourteous telephone operator, a surly clerk, an overzealous
policeman, or a loafing worker can quickly destroy the good image a mayor
has established. In other words, the desire to establish a good working
relationship among officials and citizens must extend all along the line. There
must be no weak links in the chain of cooperation.

Recruiting procedures should give preference to outgoing and friendly

applicants for employment. Training, before and on the job, should stress the
need for courtesy and for cooperation with citizens. Supervisors should always
stress the concept that employees are working with and for the residents.
Discourteous employees should be urged to establish better relations with the
public, shifted to non-visible positions, or, if need be, reprimanded or disciplined.

The fourth and last requisite for accountable officials that we will consider
is establishing an evaluative mechanism for ascertaining the impact or
effectiveness of programs which are undertaken. Despite the best intentions,
an official can spend time and other resources on non-productive or even
counter-productive efforts. If a neighborhood service center is to be
established, some measure of its activity should be set before the center is
opened. Later, officials can judge whether the center is meeting their obje-4-
ives. Even if the center fails to meet some criteria, it may serve other needs. An

57
underutilized center with employees killing time should be phased out or
replanned with different objectives.

Certainly there are other requisites for an effective program of

decentralization and participation. We have discussed a few that seem
important. Perhaps you have other ideas about the prerequisites for an
accountability program.

LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Why does the first requisite for accountability, that the official be desirous
of achieving a modicum of participation and/or decentralization seem
so important? Do you agree?

2. What other requisites are necessary to achieve conditions of

participation and decentralization?

3. What training programs or elements can you suggest to sensitize public

employees to the need to deal courteously and cooperatively with
citizens? (There are no suggestions in the reading) Do you consider this
sensitizing essential? Why or why not?

 INTRAGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

The decentralization of municipal government to barangays or

neighborhood areas adds another level of government. This should not be seen
as strictly a horizontal layer below the municipal layer. Rather, it should be
viewed more like another flavor of cake, making a "marble cake" design. In any
case, with the addition of other units of government there are more needs for
communications, for coordination. and for division of responsibility. Some of
these areas of concern or needs are suggested here.

One major problem for governmental officials is determining how to

supervise regional offices or other decentralized offices. What basis should
determine responsibility: the geographic basis or the functional basis? For
example, if a regional/provincial official is to be responsible for an area, that
official normally could have jurisdiction over the other staff in the office. Yet
each of these has functional relationships with counterparts in the centralized
office. Thus, the water personnel in the district would be more likely to relate to

58
the department of water works rather than the district chief. Similar relationships
exist for planners, traffic or police officials, recreation workers, and others. There
is a delicate problem in assigning responsibility and ensuring coverage at the
same time.

Another related issue must be addressed: what decisions can be made

at the district or neighborhood office and which ones should be made at the
city-wide level. Some decisions are clearly city-wide. Decisions such as water
supply; civil service, waste disposal policies, and police training belong on a
wide-area basis. Some services have metropolitan-wide implications; these
include transit, sewage treatment, airport, and probably health and welfare
provisions. But many services can be decentralized to the local level, and
decisions can be made there. We suggest that these may include: recreation
programs, trash collection, tree planting, some traffic control, and, possibly,
limited police services.

One way of achieving decentralization and encouraging decision-

making at the local level is to appropriate to each community some
discretionary funds each year. Basic city services could continue to be provided
on a uniform basis across the city. The local area can then decide whether it
wants to spend the optional funds on new trees and landscaping, purchase of
land, more frequent garbage collection, or other services. Other means are
suggested further on in the module. Another similar method resembles the
Community Development program. Funds are available on a municipal basis,
but barangays are urged to apply for money for special projects. In a sense
each barangays competes with all others and with city-wide interests for a
share of the resources. In this case, final decisions are made by the council.

Another problem which will vex administrators is how to achieve interunit

cooperation when units of government have proliferated and when more of
these have decision-making powers. As each unit or group of citizens attains
some power, it will want to retain this power and control. The tendency may be
toward autonomy and non-cooperation. It should be made as clear as possible
that decentralization can only work through cooperative efforts. The astute
administrator will encourage cooperation among communities as far as
possible, always seeking to avoid the temptation to make decisions centrally
and unilaterally or to place neighborhoods on a competitive basis.

 CITIZEN/GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

The relationships between officials and citizens must be examined. If

citizens can be ignored, then these relationships hardly exist. But if the
electorate is to be involved beyond voting; then good working relations must
be maintained. There are several issues that officials probably with citizen input
must decide. The specific issues which will be dealt with here are:

59
1. When should citizens be involved in decisions or how much should
administrators accomplish before opening up the process to the
electorate? Obviously if too much has been decided before issues are
presented to citizens, their participation is mere tokenism. They may have
a veto power, but sometimes it is too late even to say "No" to a project.
Clearly, participation should start early.

Actually, if a continuous process of participation has been established,

this issue of timing may not arise. Citizens will have been consulted in all
aspects of planning; they will have helped suggest problems, agreed
upon goals and objectives, and assisted in outlining alternatives. A viable
and meaningful program of participation makes this issue practically
irrelevant. The citizens are involved all the time.

2. How much weight is to be placed on citizen input? There are, obviously,

other inputs to be considered in making a decision or implementing a
project. These other inputs will include (but are not limited to): costs and
budgetary restraints; technical considerations (i.e., what the citizens want
may not be technically possible); input from other political groups
(special interests, the opposing party, another faction, or an adjoining
community; staff input (i.e., the planners and other employees who also
have recommendation: and also may be considering problems of
implementation or operating procedures); and legal restrictions. Note,
however, that some of these inputs are actually "citizen contributions."

If there are objective reasons why a citizens' proposal is unacceptable,

the fact should be clearly communicated to those concerned and there
should be a sufficient response. This. proposals which would encounter
legal restrictions, budget overruns, or technical impossibilities can be
eliminated from consideration. Otherwise the process becomes strictly a
political decision-making process. The hoped for solution is a compromise
and a consensus. Barring that possibility, officials must decide on the basis
of political "costs and benefits." The official who honestly seeks a high
degree of citizen input and participation will grant the citizens' position a
fairly high status in the decision-making.

It is this need to balance and decide conflicting demands which may be

the greatest difficulty for public officials. Yet, this is what the political
process really is. Finding optimum--or even satisfactory solutions to these
demands can offer the greatest challenge and reward to public officials.

3. Another issue for administrators is dividing responsibilities with citizens.

What are "official" responsibilities and which can be delegated to
citizens? What kinds of decisions can be assigned, contracted for, or
relinquished to neighborhood groups? interest groups? or coalitions? On

60
 the one hand, it is easy to say that citizens have ultimate authority
anyway and, therefore, should have the right to help make decisions. The
counter to that argument is simply that, as the population has grown,
government has developed and an effective system of governing has
evolved. To return to citizen control would be anarchy and could lead to
complete breakdown of governance. The answer clearly lies somewhere
in the middle.

4. A similar problem is the recognition by government of the various citizens'

groups which claim to represent the population. Which group really
represents the voters? If a group clearly is not representative of a total
community yet does espouse a clear concern (say; for conservation),
how can its views be melded with those of the dominant group? And if
the municipality itself is organizing the citizens, what are appropriate
geographic boundaries or common concerns? These questions can only
be raised here; an accountable official may want to do some careful
research or consult with trained community organizers for guidance.

In summary, we return to the earlier statement in the lesson that "the

official (should) be desirous of achieving a modicum of participation
and/or decentralization." So much rests upon the administrator or elected
public official! The official or administrator should appreciate the
changing role of citizens in government. Officials should be skilled in
group dynamics. They must be good communicators. They must be able
to handle conflict and yet arrive at sound political decisions. They must
be able to function in situations which are in flux, uncertain, and difficult.
Administrators can no longer sit at the top of the pyramid and make
decisions which are followed without challenge.

Still officials with the ability to surmount these challenges, with the
composure and skills to work with citizens, and with the willingness to
decentralize will realize effective solutions to pressing human problems.
They will seek and in solutions which satisfy more citizens. They will find
answers beyond the technical, efficient, easy ways. Ultimately, these
officials will be leading the way toward new forms of governance which
are more responsive to citizens, more oriented to human values, and
more likely to be accepted.21

21Ibid

61
 LEARNING EXERCISE

1. Do you believe it is accurate to state that "if a continuous process of

participation has been established, (the) issue of timing will not arise"?
Why or why not?

2. What is re-emphasized as the most important aspect in establishing

participation and decentralization.

“The greatest challenge to public administrators

operating within a participatory environment will
be identifying and balancing citizen needs and
demands against the potentially conflicting
demands and socio-economic needs of public
employees, elected officials, and administrative
superiors.”
Adam Herbert

62
References

An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor Of The State Any Property Found To Have
Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer Or Employee And
Providing For The Proceedings Therefor (RA No. 1379).
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1955/ra_1379_1955.html

An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder (RA No. 7080).
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/republicacts/Republic_Act_No_70
80.pdf

Anti-Corruption Initiatives in the Philippines.

http://infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/case-study-anti-corruption-
initiatives-in-the-philippines/

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – Republic Act No. 3019.

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_3019_1960.html

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=210
24&section=4.1

Ateneo School of Government (ASoG)

Black’s Law Dictionary

Bernas, J. G. The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011

ed.

Bhamare, Chetan R.,Effects of Social Media on Communication Skills.

https://theknowledgereview.com/effects-social-media-communication-
skills/

Bovens, M., Public Accountability.

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019922644
3.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199226443-e-9

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA
No. 6713). https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6713_1989.html

Connor, Desmond M. , Citizens Participate: An Action Guide_for Public Issues,

p.7

Ham, Clifford C. Public Accountability, University of Pittsburgh

63