Need back in 12 hours MPA6999

Running head: Accountability in public offices 1

Accountability in public offices

Analyze and explain which is a better accountability of measure, external or internal controls or the character of the administrator.

The current administration has become more complex making it more difficult to secure the responsibilities of administrators. There has been a public debate regarding whether accountability of administrators should be based on the internal or external control, or administrators character (Friedrich, 1940). The most effective accountability measure is the incorporation of both internal and external control measures. Both control measures have their weaknesses and strengths. As such, combining both control measures would be effective since the weaknesses of one control measure would be outweighed by the strength of the other control measure.

Internal control refers to the implementation of internal policies that will guide the actions of administrators in public offices. On the contrary external control involves the use of laws and regulations to guide the actions of the administrators (Friedrich, 1940). Internal control should be used in public offices because it ensures effective prevention of fraud. If internal controls are implemented in organizations, it helps in holding administrators more accountable since it ensures that they adhere to policies that specifically promote the success of a public organization. This is especially true if the laws and regulations are too general to be applied in a specific public organization. If internal controls are implemented in an organization, it can be easier for administrators to be evaluated based on the goals of the office. This implies that internal controls make it easier to monitor and detect fraud in the public offices.

In addition, internal controls ensure effective segregation of duties in public offices. For example, through internal controls, those handling cash should not be allowed to deal with the reconciliation of financial records. Such segregation is vital because it ensures that no money is lost or stolen without being detected on time. In addition, such segregation of duties through internal controls helps in identifying administrators who are not carrying out their responsibilities effectively. This vital because it enables public offices to implement more effective solutions or alternative early enough.

Even though internal controls of administrators in public offices are effective they have some limitations which requires its combination with the external controls. For example, one of the limitations of implementing internal controls alone is that it may encourage administrators in a public office to manipulate internal policies in order to suit their selfish interests. For example, those handling cash and those dealing with financial records reconciliation may collaborate to override the internal controls system. This will enable them to steal for the government without being noticed. Internal controls may also be affected by the common human errors which make it difficult to detect theft on time. For this reason, external controls should be aligned with the goals and the internal policies of the public offices. Through external controls, a public office can be monitored by auditors who will ensure that administrators comply with the laws and regulations. External controls are especially effective since public offices are not managed by board of directors unlike in the private sectors. With external auditors, it may be difficult for public administrators to collaborate among themselves in engaging in fraudulent activities. However, some laws and regulations may not be clear enough to be implemented in some public offices. This can lead to the implementation of sustainable measures of control. Moreover, there may be shortage of expertise and time which may hinder the external controls processes. As such, both internal and external controls of accountability should be implemented in public offices.

Explain why or why not you believe that most citizens today view public service as the highest and noblest calling.

Public service has been said to be a noble call because of the nature of the work involved and the goals of the public service. For instance, public service involves offering public goods while meeting needs of all citizens in a country (Finer, 1941). This implies that public servants are expected to work based on the interests of citizens and not their own or their families’ interests. For this goals to be realized there is need for public servants to be selfless and to sacrifice. Public administration should focus on recruiting and rewarding people who are driven by their willingness to satisfy the needs of all citizens in the country. Viewing public service as the highest and noble cost can be evaluated based on the level of trust the public has on the government. Based on the level of trust on the government, most citizens do not believe that public services are a noble call.

Since the historical time, the level of trust in the federal government has been low. According to a study conducted in Washington, only 19 percent of citizens in the US trust the government (Pew Research Center, 2015). The low level of trust in the government has been experienced in the country since the year 1960s (Pew Research Center, 2015). The erosion of the public trust has been experienced in the country because of the various events. For example, in the year 1964, the level of trust in the country reduced because of events such as Vietnam War and civil unrest. In the year 2001, the level of trust reduced because of the September 11 attack (Pew Research Center, 2015). It is because of this event that the public thought the government was not able to effectively satisfy their security needs.

The other factor that makes citizens not to believe that public service is not a calling is corruption of some civil servants. For public service to be a calling it has to focus on the interests of the public rather than those of public servants. However, corruption shows that some public servants are focusing on their self-interests. This leads to lower level of trust in public service. The US is among the leading nations that are fighting against corruption especially among public officials. However, there are a few cases of corruption such as bribery which reduce the public confidence in public service. There need to increase transparency when offering the public services in order to increase the public trust. This will also make the public service to be the highest and noble calling.

Moreover, the use of police excessive forces against citizens is among the factors that reduce the public trust in public service. This is especially true if excessive force is used against some ethnic groups compared to others leading to discrimination while offering the public service. The use of excessive force was experienced in the year 2015 when police officers killed about 1139 people in the country. Among those killed, more that 25 percent of them were African Americans. Such incidences may make people from this demographic group to believe that there is discrimination in the police department (Kennedy, 2016). As a result, the will stop believing that public service is call. In order to make the claim that public service is a noble calling, there is need to ensure equality when offering the services .

Reference

Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(summer 1941), 335–350.

Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C. J. Friedrich & E. S. Mason (Eds.), Public policy (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kennedy, R. (2016). Excessive use of force by the public police against black Americans in the United States. Retrieved from:

rfkhumanrights.org/.../iachr_thematic_hearing_submission_-_excessive_use_of_force_b.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Beyond distrust: How Americans view their government. Retrieved from:

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/