Mandates and the Public Administrator

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Thomas E. Poulin
December 23, 2024

The word “mandate” is frequently used during and after elections to justify policy agendas. The suggestion is that a mandate provides those in power virtually unlimited authority to implement their policy agenda immediately. The question for public administrators is how a mandate might affect their delivery of services to the community in both the short and long term.

Public administrators, from the front lines to the executive level, are tasked with meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of their communities. They must do so with the authorities, resources and guidance provided to them. Mandates might affect these, so public administrators must understand how to implement them appropriately.

The term mandate has been interpreted in several ways. Technically, if an individual or agency is tasked with accomplishing an activity, they have a mandate. Organizational mandates are common in all agencies, created by the elected or appointed leadership. There is no foundation for arguing such a mandate truly represents the will of a majority, let alone an overwhelming majority, of the community. At times, these mandates might be generated by laws or policies created outside the agency, with little or no input from agency leadership or those individuals who will be asked to accomplish the work.

Some interpret a mandate for public agencies to be overwhelming simply because an election has been won, but this ignores the fact that many elections in the United States are won by a plurality of votes or by a limited margin and do not represent a universally shared will. This creates a challenge for public administrators serving elected bodies which are fragmented politically. The existence of a mandate created by a minority or plurality of the community necessarily means there will be those who are apathetic if not opposed to the new policy direction. Consequently, public administrators must factor in how to address any resistance to the change, both outside and inside the agency.

In general, the modern ideal of public administration in the United States has been framed on the vision of James Madison. His vision of good governance is characterized by satisfying as many in the community as possible as much as possible, while simultaneously disappointing as few in the community as little as possible. This must be done in an environment with innumerable challenges and limited resources. At the best of times, this poses a conundrum for public administrators. Some policy mandates might alter this equation, which might have an abrupt effect on service delivery by public agencies. This might be a factor in how the new policy is introduced to the community and the pace at which it is enacted.

In the short term, it is necessary to understand most mandates cannot be implemented immediately for practical purposes. Proposed policy mandates tend to be phrased in broad terms. Public administrators will have to clarify these mandates with those new to elected or appointed positions. This may not take significant time if the newly elected or appointed officials have crafted a detailed proposal they wish to enact. If not, implementing a new mandate requires discussions between public administrators and the elected or appointed officials to clarify the intent and desired outcomes of the new policy.

This clarification process is not a “stalling” maneuver. Instead, it is a necessary step in the planning process. Changes in service delivery do not change overnight, even if they might appear to do so. Organizational inertia must be stopped, redirected or reversed. This will require clear direction to agency employees and new policies and procedures. This is more complicated the larger the agency is or if the mandate involves the coordinated efforts of multiple agencies from the local, state and federal governments.

If a service is to be shifted to the private or non-profit sectors, some form of transition might have to be developed to provide a “safety net” for essential services until the new provider is ready to assume a task previously provided by a public agency. This minimizes service gaps, providing individuals time to plan for changes in their lives.

Some aspects of a new mandate might be outside the immediate control of any public agency. In some instances, the promised mandate shall require a change in enabling legislation, and perhaps the creation, elimination or melding of public agencies. If this is the case, public administrators might begin the process to implement the new mandate, but are limited in how far they go until the enabling legislation or reorganization has been approved through appropriate legislative or executive processes.

Changing organizational cultures takes time, and a new mandate might require significant changes to the formal and informal cultures of an agency. Most public administrators take pride in doing their best to provide services to the community in an effective, efficient and responsive manner while working within the limits of the authorities and resources provided to them. To address a new mandate, public agencies must clarify the desired outcomes, plan to achieve those outcomes and then take active measures to achieve their new mandates in a professional manner.

---

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, SHRM-CP, IPMA-CP, is a training and development consultant and part-time public administration faculty at Columbia Southern University. He served in local government and non-profits for more than 30 years and has taught public administration and related topics for nearly 20. He may be reached at [email protected].

 

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...