Note: This article[A] addresses the concept of "policy versus administration" from the perspective of local government. It also borrows heavily from the work of Dr. John Nalbandian. [1]
An action is the result of deciding what is to be done and, then, how it is to be accomplished. This article is premised on the belief that organizations of any complexity are best served when these functions are handled by different groups of individuals - a board in the case of the former; management in the case of the latter. In governmental organizations, the task of the board is referred to as "setting policy;" the task of management, as "administering the board's policy."
Often elected officials feel they should weigh in on “how” a job should be done or that administrative staff should decide “what” services fit in the budget. Then, too, many times administrative staff believe alderpersons should have little to say about the services offered by the municipality, other than to set budgets and adopt various resolutions and ordinances now and then. These views are, quite simply, wrong.
A local governing body is often faced with complex and challenging decisions, and while it may seem to be better to pass these decisions on to municipal staff, doing so prevents the governing body from doing its job. The governing body is elected to make the really tough decisions, to set policy or make changes to existing policy. The job of municipal staff - administration - is to determine how the policy is to be implemented.
Up to our own day all the political writers whom we now read had thought, argued, dogmatized only about the constitution of government; about the nature of the state, the essence and seat of sovereignty, popular power and kingly prerogative; about the greatest meanings lying at the heart of government, and the high ends set before the purpose of government by man’s nature and man’s aims. The central field of controversy was that great field of theory in which monarchy rode tilt against democracy, in which oligarchy would have built for itself strongholds of privilege, and in which tyranny sought opportunity to make good its claim to receive submission from all competitors. Amidst this high warfare of principles, administration could command no pause for its own consideration. The question was always: Who shall make law, and what shall that law be? The other question, how law should be administered with enlightenment, with equity, with speed, and without friction, was put aside as “practical detail” which clerks could arrange after doctors had agreed upon principles.
-- Woodrow Wilson[2]
While municipal staff can, and should, offer information regarding the pros and cons of various policy choices, it cannot make those decisions without undermining the policy-setting authority of the governing body. It is also important to remember that governing bodies are elected and meant to be legislative; while municipal staff are appointed in the attempt to remove politics from their positions.
To assist local governing bodies with decision making, Dr. Nalbandian cites four values that are frequently encountered in local governance which conflict with each other and must be balanced by elected officials: (1) representation, (2) social equity, (3) efficiency, and (4) individual rights.
Questions regarding “what is to be done” have no “right” answers. All of the expertise that staff brings to a meeting is, of course, helpful, but, in the end, deciding the relative importance of the impacts of a proposal on representation, efficiency, social equity, and/or individual rights is something that cannot be relegated to staff; this is what the governing body was elected to do.
Once the governing body has made its decision, administrative staff has an equal responsibility to do the best job it can, within the limits of the resources it is provided, to implement such. While the first reaction to what it views as an unreasonable policy decision is often, “It can’t be done,” it is incumbent upon administrative staff to bring all of its departmental resources to bear to exhaust all possibilities. If, after this exercise is complete, the resources and other constraints are such that there truly are no reasonable methods of implementing a policy decision, then the governing body must be briefed and asked for an alternative direction.
As implied earlier, administrative staff are often tempted to help the Council make the “right” decision. In order to insure that what they believe is the best policy will be adopted, administrative staff will provide facts and analyses which the disinterested observer might not term as objective or evenhanded. Administrative staff must, however, discipline themselves to be constantly vigilant about objectively analyzing a problem and providing at least a couple of viable alternatives. To fail in this professional responsibility does little more than put administrative staff in the de facto “policy setting” role and, thereby, usurp the empowerment the electorate has provided by choosing the members of the governing body.