Blayne A.

Jewison
Org. Theory
Undergraduate Reading
2-11-96

A Case for Reinterpreted Dichotomy of Politics and Administration as a Professional Standard in
Council- Manager Government.
Can city or county managers take an active role in policy making and still have grounds to keep council
politics out of the administrative hierarchy?
This is the questioned posed in this article. First of all I think it is important to define the word
Dichotomy. It is a tool used to guide behavior, and to provide for the expression of the popular will
without the interference of machine politics. Through the writings of Woodrow Wilson and Frank
Goodnow we can begin to understand the concept of council management and how through time this
concept has been reinterpreted in order to define the politics-administration dichotomy that exits
today.
The underlying issue here is that administration could and should be institutionally separate from
politics. If this concept were to be applied to the council management approach this would enable the
manager to be a neutral party who is efficiently and effectively caring out the policies of the council.
However evidence has supported the idea that the manager throughout the history of council-
management has had an active role in the policy process. Mission-management acts as a continuum for
which a manager has some flexibility in the policy making process while still holding true to the idea of
role separation.
Others say the new role of the city manager has been transformed from the conventional neutral expert
to that of a community leader and problem solver. Thus the dichotomy is seem not so much as a guide
for behavior rather it acts as an intellectual tool connecting practice and theory. We then try to replace
this function of the dichotomy with a expanded base of professional values for city managers.
Traditional roles prescribed by our fore-fathers don't seem to be practical nor desirable in the council-
management form of government. Yet we can't abandon the dichotomy of politics and administration
for we need to protect ourselves from particularlism. Particularism may include such things as favors in
hiring or contracting decisions.
We tend to focus on the politics-administration dichotomy as a professional standard (guidelines; if you
will) rather than focusing on the dichotomy as an actual description of actual behavior. It is necessary to
examine what the standard is and what behavior it advocates in order to understand issues of values
served, and whether this standard can in fact affect behavior in desirable ways.
The dichotomy of policy and administration was a concept introduced to outline the theory of
democratic accountability, not as a tool to guide behavior. This dichotomy was intend to protect
themselves from political machines. Still such things as Particularism are still prevalent today. The ban
on Particularism was not intended to remove discretion as long as the administration was held
accountable. But reformers felt accountability was nearly impossible due to the separation of powers
doctrine. They believed their should be a concentration of power which would facilitate accountability
and this concept is found as an exception in the council-manager form of government.
The Council-manager plan was first seen in the reform association known as the National Municipal
League, formed in 1895. The primary goal of this organization was to change the structure of city
governments leaving them less prone to political corruption. From this the commission form of
municipal government emerged. This commission was made up of five elected officials who acted as a
uniform body when acting on legislative issues, while still running their respective departments
individually. This concept seemed to have abandoned the the seperation separation of powers doctrine,
and people felt this concept spread administrative functions and failed to give the city the direction it
needed.
Frank Goodnow tried to reinterpret these dichotomies by dissecting the three basic functions of
government-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial functions of government. He felt their should
be just two: The expression of the the populaces populaces will and the execution of their will. It seems
the three functions of government were founded on these two principals and the respective branches
appear to work together in order to promote the expression of the populaces will and the execution of
it. The question that comes out of this concept is: Is this caring out of the publics will policy making,
politics, or both. It would appear to be a combination of both for the public will is expressed in the form
of policy, and politics is involved in this process. For us to put into prospective the distinction between
policy and politics we must consider a second dichotomy.
Administration was intended to lie outside the sphere of politics. Therefore administration questions are
not political questions. This clearly illustrates a separation of politics and administration. Woodrow
Wilson dealt with two types of politics, partisanship and patronage and that of policy making. These two
distinctions are essential because if politics includes policy making then the administrator is void of the
ability to participate in the functions of the organization. What Wilson wanted to do was to simple
remove patronage politics from administration. He believed administrators were politicians, and they
must have the freedom to make ethical decisions. The dictionary definition of politics does limit the part
of the policy-making process of guiding or influencing the policy of government. However it also allows
for patronage. This definitely backs Wilson 's view and it gives solutions to Frank Goodnows
interpretations.
The simple removal of partisanship and patronage from administration doesn't guarantee the
separation of policy making from administration. A problem that arose was that people began to vote
on the basis of personal benefits rather than on principle. This all came about because some
administrators used their power for the benefit of a particular party rather than concentrating on the
efficient execution of the states will. This further illustrates the corruptive powers of the political
machine.
From such things as partisanship and patronage came the idea of the civil service system. This system
was put in place to try to combat with the problems of the spoils system. This system was designed to
distribute the power throughout the organization to insure someone wasn't abusing his or her power for
their own benefit. This distribution of power in actuality weakens the ability of the organization to be
accountable to the public. This system allows the hierarchy to act as police officers with a system of
checks and balances to insure accountability. This means that discretion is not removed from
management but it is contained within the bounds of higher policy. It also allows the manager to
influence higher policy just as long as one doesn't step outside the chain of command.
The absence of a single power prevented the establishment of such a hierarchy which would facilitate
the direction in which a agency can derive its power from. Goodnow agreed that the executive and the
two forms of the legislature should unite, thereby concentrating power and finally completing the chain
of accountability to the public. This would truly be an example of "expression of the publics will.) This
would seem to solve the accountability problem. Under this system the hierarchy would be free from
extraneous influences such as particularistic influences and patronage.
Now we can look at the manager as a type of executive able to have some influence in the policy making
process. This brings up an interesting argument that if the manager is able to affect the policy making
process will they keep with the goals of the organization? In the Council-manager theory the council
when acting as whole ultimately is the only body who has the authority to make policy. This means that
managers can participate in the policy process and have some discretion as long as they remain free of
particularistic requests. This would appear to be a clear system of checks and balances however the
council has the ultimate authority to remove the manager at any time. So it is hard for a manager to
stand up for his or her beliefs in keeping with the will of the people and still be able to blend and get
along with the council. The most influential tool for providing for the proper execution of the p[publics
will is the mangers dedication to ones profession. This ultimately keeps the system working.
The purpose of this article was to illustrate that the politics-administration dichotomy is still a very
prevalent issue today. It also wanted to show the fact that this dichotomy is crucial in the individual
dealings with councils and their structuring of employee-council relations. This dichotomy gives the
manager a weapon to ward off particularistic tendencies in the political system. This dichotomy remains
a standard in which the profession of local management can adhere to.