Download - Beyond the Scope of the Article
Beyond the Scope of the ArticleAuthor(s): Lynton K. CaldwellSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1977), pp. 125-126Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/974526 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 01:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:51:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This was Richard J. Stillman's item on "The Bureaucracy Problem at DOJ." The author points up a number of areas needing atten- tion, and his suggested remedies have merit. Heavy work- loads at INS and DEA impair the effectiveness of these divisions. A recent news item states that the Center for National Security Studies urges the abolition of the agency as ineffective, referring to LEAA. If reducing crime is an aim of this division, its efforts have been for naught.
Why was DOJ allowed to drift into this mess? What have top management and management program staffs been doing all these years? Why hasn't attention from OMF and OPP been more effective in solving problems? Likewise, what have the Comptroller General and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees been doing in exercising oversight over DOJ?
Trying to remedy the situation at DOJ may be an exercise in futility, but the poor taxpayer deserves to have some action to shake up the structure.
Shifting to a happier vein, another article in PAR No. 4 by John A. Rohr entitled "The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum" examines conflicting interpretations of values and the administrator's role in analyzing of possible positions in order to make "the right choice." Courses in ethics, embracing so-called "situation ethics" problems appear to be a worthwhile addition to the P.A. curricu- lum.
Keep the good articles coming.
F. Louis Valla Long Beach, California
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This was Richard J. Stillman's item on "The Bureaucracy Problem at DOJ." The author points up a number of areas needing atten- tion, and his suggested remedies have merit. Heavy work- loads at INS and DEA impair the effectiveness of these divisions. A recent news item states that the Center for National Security Studies urges the abolition of the agency as ineffective, referring to LEAA. If reducing crime is an aim of this division, its efforts have been for naught.
Why was DOJ allowed to drift into this mess? What have top management and management program staffs been doing all these years? Why hasn't attention from OMF and OPP been more effective in solving problems? Likewise, what have the Comptroller General and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees been doing in exercising oversight over DOJ?
Trying to remedy the situation at DOJ may be an exercise in futility, but the poor taxpayer deserves to have some action to shake up the structure.
Shifting to a happier vein, another article in PAR No. 4 by John A. Rohr entitled "The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum" examines conflicting interpretations of values and the administrator's role in analyzing of possible positions in order to make "the right choice." Courses in ethics, embracing so-called "situation ethics" problems appear to be a worthwhile addition to the P.A. curricu- lum.
Keep the good articles coming.
F. Louis Valla Long Beach, California
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This was Richard J. Stillman's item on "The Bureaucracy Problem at DOJ." The author points up a number of areas needing atten- tion, and his suggested remedies have merit. Heavy work- loads at INS and DEA impair the effectiveness of these divisions. A recent news item states that the Center for National Security Studies urges the abolition of the agency as ineffective, referring to LEAA. If reducing crime is an aim of this division, its efforts have been for naught.
Why was DOJ allowed to drift into this mess? What have top management and management program staffs been doing all these years? Why hasn't attention from OMF and OPP been more effective in solving problems? Likewise, what have the Comptroller General and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees been doing in exercising oversight over DOJ?
Trying to remedy the situation at DOJ may be an exercise in futility, but the poor taxpayer deserves to have some action to shake up the structure.
Shifting to a happier vein, another article in PAR No. 4 by John A. Rohr entitled "The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum" examines conflicting interpretations of values and the administrator's role in analyzing of possible positions in order to make "the right choice." Courses in ethics, embracing so-called "situation ethics" problems appear to be a worthwhile addition to the P.A. curricu- lum.
Keep the good articles coming.
F. Louis Valla Long Beach, California
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This was Richard J. Stillman's item on "The Bureaucracy Problem at DOJ." The author points up a number of areas needing atten- tion, and his suggested remedies have merit. Heavy work- loads at INS and DEA impair the effectiveness of these divisions. A recent news item states that the Center for National Security Studies urges the abolition of the agency as ineffective, referring to LEAA. If reducing crime is an aim of this division, its efforts have been for naught.
Why was DOJ allowed to drift into this mess? What have top management and management program staffs been doing all these years? Why hasn't attention from OMF and OPP been more effective in solving problems? Likewise, what have the Comptroller General and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees been doing in exercising oversight over DOJ?
Trying to remedy the situation at DOJ may be an exercise in futility, but the poor taxpayer deserves to have some action to shake up the structure.
Shifting to a happier vein, another article in PAR No. 4 by John A. Rohr entitled "The Study of Ethics in the P.A. Curriculum" examines conflicting interpretations of values and the administrator's role in analyzing of possible positions in order to make "the right choice." Courses in ethics, embracing so-called "situation ethics" problems appear to be a worthwhile addition to the P.A. curricu- lum.
Keep the good articles coming.
F. Louis Valla Long Beach, California
Need for a Shift Toward Public Administration Leadership
Mr. Valla's questions about the U.S. Department of Justice are justified. More citizens should complain about the non-performance and misuse of taxpayer's money at that agency. He also correctly refers to the apparent prob- lems of "drift" and lack of effective oversight by the Judiciary Committees in Congress as well as by the Attorney General and his staff. As I pointed out in my article, much of this oversight problem stems from the weltanschauung of the lawyers who are in charge and who perceive that the problems in Justice should be handled on a case-by-case, crisis-by-crisis basis rather than from a policy-management-planning vantage point. DOJ requires a big shift away from legal oversight toward public admin- istration leadership.
Richard Stillman, II Professor of Public Administration
California State College, Bakersfield
Need for a Shift Toward Public Administration Leadership
Mr. Valla's questions about the U.S. Department of Justice are justified. More citizens should complain about the non-performance and misuse of taxpayer's money at that agency. He also correctly refers to the apparent prob- lems of "drift" and lack of effective oversight by the Judiciary Committees in Congress as well as by the Attorney General and his staff. As I pointed out in my article, much of this oversight problem stems from the weltanschauung of the lawyers who are in charge and who perceive that the problems in Justice should be handled on a case-by-case, crisis-by-crisis basis rather than from a policy-management-planning vantage point. DOJ requires a big shift away from legal oversight toward public admin- istration leadership.
Richard Stillman, II Professor of Public Administration
California State College, Bakersfield
Need for a Shift Toward Public Administration Leadership
Mr. Valla's questions about the U.S. Department of Justice are justified. More citizens should complain about the non-performance and misuse of taxpayer's money at that agency. He also correctly refers to the apparent prob- lems of "drift" and lack of effective oversight by the Judiciary Committees in Congress as well as by the Attorney General and his staff. As I pointed out in my article, much of this oversight problem stems from the weltanschauung of the lawyers who are in charge and who perceive that the problems in Justice should be handled on a case-by-case, crisis-by-crisis basis rather than from a policy-management-planning vantage point. DOJ requires a big shift away from legal oversight toward public admin- istration leadership.
Richard Stillman, II Professor of Public Administration
California State College, Bakersfield
Need for a Shift Toward Public Administration Leadership
Mr. Valla's questions about the U.S. Department of Justice are justified. More citizens should complain about the non-performance and misuse of taxpayer's money at that agency. He also correctly refers to the apparent prob- lems of "drift" and lack of effective oversight by the Judiciary Committees in Congress as well as by the Attorney General and his staff. As I pointed out in my article, much of this oversight problem stems from the weltanschauung of the lawyers who are in charge and who perceive that the problems in Justice should be handled on a case-by-case, crisis-by-crisis basis rather than from a policy-management-planning vantage point. DOJ requires a big shift away from legal oversight toward public admin- istration leadership.
Richard Stillman, II Professor of Public Administration
California State College, Bakersfield
Optimistic and Pessimistic Conclusions
To the Editor:
While appreciative of PAR's foresight in publishing an article with hindsight ("Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heri- tage of American Public Administration"), certain con-
Optimistic and Pessimistic Conclusions
To the Editor:
While appreciative of PAR's foresight in publishing an article with hindsight ("Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heri- tage of American Public Administration"), certain con-
Optimistic and Pessimistic Conclusions
To the Editor:
While appreciative of PAR's foresight in publishing an article with hindsight ("Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heri- tage of American Public Administration"), certain con-
Optimistic and Pessimistic Conclusions
To the Editor:
While appreciative of PAR's foresight in publishing an article with hindsight ("Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heri- tage of American Public Administration"), certain con-
clusions drawn by Lynton K. Caldwell seem, on the one hand, too optimistic, while on the other, implicit to the article, is an unwarranted pessimism.
Obscured in the analysis is the observation that while the founders were "not notably egalitarian ...," "equality has been a generally accepted value" (p. 483). It is more accurate to state that the founders were elitists by any current standard to the extent of restricting the vote to "electors" - generally white, male, protestant, prop- erty holders of a certain age. This effectively excluded females, small farmers, indentured whites, slaves, and Indians from exercising any sovereignty whatsoever. Thus the origins of the country are, to an extent, understated by Caldwell and unappreciated; generally, "undemo- cratic."
The author is clearly aware of this general problem area as evidenced by his specification of two serious "constitutional" issues which could not be anticipated. He concludes that as political franchise was extended, it did not adequately define "... the obligations of the citizen to society ..." (p. 486). This is too optimistic in that even as Caldwell articulates the second "closely related" challenge as "... the relationship between public and private power - primarily economic power" (p. 486), the complexities of the issue are glossed over.
The equivalence the founders drew between personal freedom and private property rights is an actual dilemma. Changed circumstances, including an increased conscious- ness of scarcity, have demonstrated that private property rights and human rights (including personal freedom) are not one and the same thing. It is clear that the unending pursuit of material wealth entails, to some noticeable degree, necessary denials of human rights in the interest of America's continued economic prosperity. A continu- ally violated right is, for example, freedom from natural pollution. In the case of some Americans and "citizens" of many other countries as well, the violations are of direct political rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote. This raises doubts about one of America's traditional conceits "... we are acting for all mankind" (p. 477).
Since the author is undoubtedly aware of the dilemmas, even stated in the above terms, he is pessimistic in the reluctance to confront the tension between indi- vidual liberty and private property rights directly. Whether this is a pessimism about the acceptability of a view that has profoundly complicated overtones, the ability of PAR readers to process this type of analysis, or the avoidance of an issue so crucial to the future but so apparently intractable as to threaten the very viability of the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is difficult to judge.
Geoff Gallas University of Southern California
clusions drawn by Lynton K. Caldwell seem, on the one hand, too optimistic, while on the other, implicit to the article, is an unwarranted pessimism.
Obscured in the analysis is the observation that while the founders were "not notably egalitarian ...," "equality has been a generally accepted value" (p. 483). It is more accurate to state that the founders were elitists by any current standard to the extent of restricting the vote to "electors" - generally white, male, protestant, prop- erty holders of a certain age. This effectively excluded females, small farmers, indentured whites, slaves, and Indians from exercising any sovereignty whatsoever. Thus the origins of the country are, to an extent, understated by Caldwell and unappreciated; generally, "undemo- cratic."
The author is clearly aware of this general problem area as evidenced by his specification of two serious "constitutional" issues which could not be anticipated. He concludes that as political franchise was extended, it did not adequately define "... the obligations of the citizen to society ..." (p. 486). This is too optimistic in that even as Caldwell articulates the second "closely related" challenge as "... the relationship between public and private power - primarily economic power" (p. 486), the complexities of the issue are glossed over.
The equivalence the founders drew between personal freedom and private property rights is an actual dilemma. Changed circumstances, including an increased conscious- ness of scarcity, have demonstrated that private property rights and human rights (including personal freedom) are not one and the same thing. It is clear that the unending pursuit of material wealth entails, to some noticeable degree, necessary denials of human rights in the interest of America's continued economic prosperity. A continu- ally violated right is, for example, freedom from natural pollution. In the case of some Americans and "citizens" of many other countries as well, the violations are of direct political rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote. This raises doubts about one of America's traditional conceits "... we are acting for all mankind" (p. 477).
Since the author is undoubtedly aware of the dilemmas, even stated in the above terms, he is pessimistic in the reluctance to confront the tension between indi- vidual liberty and private property rights directly. Whether this is a pessimism about the acceptability of a view that has profoundly complicated overtones, the ability of PAR readers to process this type of analysis, or the avoidance of an issue so crucial to the future but so apparently intractable as to threaten the very viability of the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is difficult to judge.
Geoff Gallas University of Southern California
clusions drawn by Lynton K. Caldwell seem, on the one hand, too optimistic, while on the other, implicit to the article, is an unwarranted pessimism.
Obscured in the analysis is the observation that while the founders were "not notably egalitarian ...," "equality has been a generally accepted value" (p. 483). It is more accurate to state that the founders were elitists by any current standard to the extent of restricting the vote to "electors" - generally white, male, protestant, prop- erty holders of a certain age. This effectively excluded females, small farmers, indentured whites, slaves, and Indians from exercising any sovereignty whatsoever. Thus the origins of the country are, to an extent, understated by Caldwell and unappreciated; generally, "undemo- cratic."
The author is clearly aware of this general problem area as evidenced by his specification of two serious "constitutional" issues which could not be anticipated. He concludes that as political franchise was extended, it did not adequately define "... the obligations of the citizen to society ..." (p. 486). This is too optimistic in that even as Caldwell articulates the second "closely related" challenge as "... the relationship between public and private power - primarily economic power" (p. 486), the complexities of the issue are glossed over.
The equivalence the founders drew between personal freedom and private property rights is an actual dilemma. Changed circumstances, including an increased conscious- ness of scarcity, have demonstrated that private property rights and human rights (including personal freedom) are not one and the same thing. It is clear that the unending pursuit of material wealth entails, to some noticeable degree, necessary denials of human rights in the interest of America's continued economic prosperity. A continu- ally violated right is, for example, freedom from natural pollution. In the case of some Americans and "citizens" of many other countries as well, the violations are of direct political rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote. This raises doubts about one of America's traditional conceits "... we are acting for all mankind" (p. 477).
Since the author is undoubtedly aware of the dilemmas, even stated in the above terms, he is pessimistic in the reluctance to confront the tension between indi- vidual liberty and private property rights directly. Whether this is a pessimism about the acceptability of a view that has profoundly complicated overtones, the ability of PAR readers to process this type of analysis, or the avoidance of an issue so crucial to the future but so apparently intractable as to threaten the very viability of the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is difficult to judge.
Geoff Gallas University of Southern California
clusions drawn by Lynton K. Caldwell seem, on the one hand, too optimistic, while on the other, implicit to the article, is an unwarranted pessimism.
Obscured in the analysis is the observation that while the founders were "not notably egalitarian ...," "equality has been a generally accepted value" (p. 483). It is more accurate to state that the founders were elitists by any current standard to the extent of restricting the vote to "electors" - generally white, male, protestant, prop- erty holders of a certain age. This effectively excluded females, small farmers, indentured whites, slaves, and Indians from exercising any sovereignty whatsoever. Thus the origins of the country are, to an extent, understated by Caldwell and unappreciated; generally, "undemo- cratic."
The author is clearly aware of this general problem area as evidenced by his specification of two serious "constitutional" issues which could not be anticipated. He concludes that as political franchise was extended, it did not adequately define "... the obligations of the citizen to society ..." (p. 486). This is too optimistic in that even as Caldwell articulates the second "closely related" challenge as "... the relationship between public and private power - primarily economic power" (p. 486), the complexities of the issue are glossed over.
The equivalence the founders drew between personal freedom and private property rights is an actual dilemma. Changed circumstances, including an increased conscious- ness of scarcity, have demonstrated that private property rights and human rights (including personal freedom) are not one and the same thing. It is clear that the unending pursuit of material wealth entails, to some noticeable degree, necessary denials of human rights in the interest of America's continued economic prosperity. A continu- ally violated right is, for example, freedom from natural pollution. In the case of some Americans and "citizens" of many other countries as well, the violations are of direct political rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote. This raises doubts about one of America's traditional conceits "... we are acting for all mankind" (p. 477).
Since the author is undoubtedly aware of the dilemmas, even stated in the above terms, he is pessimistic in the reluctance to confront the tension between indi- vidual liberty and private property rights directly. Whether this is a pessimism about the acceptability of a view that has profoundly complicated overtones, the ability of PAR readers to process this type of analysis, or the avoidance of an issue so crucial to the future but so apparently intractable as to threaten the very viability of the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is difficult to judge.
Geoff Gallas University of Southern California
Beyond the Scope of the Article
To the Editor:
Either I miss the point of Geoff Gallas' comments or he has missed the point of "Novus Ordo Seclorum." The article was intended as a description of the state of politi- cal thought underlying the American Revolution and the
Beyond the Scope of the Article
To the Editor:
Either I miss the point of Geoff Gallas' comments or he has missed the point of "Novus Ordo Seclorum." The article was intended as a description of the state of politi- cal thought underlying the American Revolution and the
Beyond the Scope of the Article
To the Editor:
Either I miss the point of Geoff Gallas' comments or he has missed the point of "Novus Ordo Seclorum." The article was intended as a description of the state of politi- cal thought underlying the American Revolution and the
Beyond the Scope of the Article
To the Editor:
Either I miss the point of Geoff Gallas' comments or he has missed the point of "Novus Ordo Seclorum." The article was intended as a description of the state of politi- cal thought underlying the American Revolution and the
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1977 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1977 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1977 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1977
125 125 125 125
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:51:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
adoption of the Constitution. No normative criteria for evaluating the political ideas of the period were proposed or intended. If, as I would agree, the so-called founders were "undemocratic" by present conventional standards, they were hardly "elitist" by any standards prevailing in their own times. Indiscriminate polemical usage of "democratic" and "elitist" have beaten out of these words whatever clarity they may once have had. And in any case, they had different meanings in different con- texts.
Mr. Gallas' principal criticism of the article is that the complexities of the private-public power dilemma "are glossed over." They have hardly been "glossed over" - they were not even considered. What is relevant to the heritage of American public administration is the way in which the private-public power issue was perceived at the end of the 18th century. To have analyzed the dilemmas and contradictions implicit in these perceptions would have been either another article or an extension beyond the space limits set by PAR. The substance of this exten- sion, moreover, would not be the heritage of American political thought, but rather a conflict in values and per- ceptions still very much alive and unresolved in present- day American society.
Mr. Gallas also feels that I have evaded the issue of
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, 1970: Section 3685. Title 39, United States Code)
personal freedom versus property rights. Certainly the founders knew the difference between freedom and property. They also understood the relationship. The "right" of individuals to be secure in the lawful possession of property was, in their experience, a necessary condi- tion of personal freedom. Where all property was con- trolled by the state no person could stand against the state. To the generation of the founders, a government that dispensed all clothing, food, shelter, and tools of production was inherently a despotism, however benevo- lent in professed intention. Mr. Gallas should remember that in 1789 the Dartmouth College case had not been tried. Private property in an age of super-conglomerates was to present problems unimagined in the age of Frank- lin and Jefferson. But to the 18th century mind the merger of overwhelming economic and political power in the state was the principal threat to personal freedom. The issue that Mr. Gallas raises is obviously important, but is also beyond the scope of "Novus Ordo Seclorum" as commissioned by the editors of Public Administration Review.
Lynton K. Caldwell Arthur F. Bentley Professor
of Political Science Indiana University
MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of August 12,
Title of Publication: Public Administration Review. 2. Date of Filing: September 23, 1976. 3. Frequency of Issue: Bimonthly; (a) No. of Issues Published Annually: 6; (b) Annual Subscription Price: $25.00. 4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 1225 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the Publishers: 1225 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 6. Names and Complete Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: American Society for Public Administration, 1225 Con- necticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Editor: Dwight Waldo, Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13210; Managing Editor: Frank Marini, School of Public Administration and Urban Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182. 7. Owner: American Society for Public Administration, 1225 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 8. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. 9. For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at special rates (Section 132.122, Postal Service Manual): (x) Have not changed during preceding 12 months. 10. Extent and nature of circulation:
A) Total no. copies printed (Net Press Run) ................... B) Paid Circulation
1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales ..................................... 2) Mail subscriptions ..................................
C) Total Paid Circulation ................................. D) Free Distribution by mail, carrier or other means
Samples, complimentary, and other free copies .............. E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D) ...................... F) Copies not distributed
1) Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing .... 2) Returns from news agents ...........................
G) Total (Sum of E, Fl and 2-should equal net press run shown in A) ......................................... I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.
Average no. copies each issue during
preceding 12 months
20,000
None 17,600 17,600
300 17,900
2,100 None
20,000
Actual number s of copies of
single issue pub- lished nearest to
filing date
22,000
None 18,259 18,259
300 18,559
3,441 None
22,000
Dwight Waldo, Editor-in-Chief
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1977
126
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:51:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
