The Erosion of Governing Norms: The Case of Wisconsin Political Appointees

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

By Michael R. Ford
June 10, 2024

A feature of governance in the United States is an unsteady balance of merit-based professionals and political appointees overseeing the delivery of goods and services. I say unsteady because the relationship between politics and administration is often tense and changing. Former President Trump, for example, made the deconstruction of the administrative state an explicit governing goal. At the local level the balance between professional management and democratic legitimacy is an ongoing source of academic study and popular debate.

The relationship between politics and administration is generally shaped by legal and legislative actions. City governments that want a professional manager, for example, will change their charter ordinance to accommodate it. State legislatures will modify administrative structures to allow for more or fewer political appointees relative to merit-based hires. While there is always debate about the proper balance between politics and administration in governing, the mechanisms by which the balance is achieved are established and generally accepted norms.

But what happens when the balance changes by non-established means? What happens when longstanding norms are ignored? Wisconsin, a politically divided state where the United States’ cultural and political fault lines are magnified, provides a case study on the changing norms of democratic governance. I myself, like many in the public administration (PA) world, have served in appointed roles. Last year I served as a political appointee to a state commission dealing with education data. I was appointed for a fixed-period, and when that period ended, I was done. At the local level I was recently appointed to my city’s Board of Review. I will serve my term and then be done.

But what if I decided, despite my term being up, that I would stay on in my appointed roles? The obvious answer is such a notion is absurd, I serve at the pleasure of those who appointed me, and only for the stated period. If I was appointed by the Governor and a new Governor decided not to renew my appointment, that is their decision, not mine. Well, not in Wisconsin.

Last month a member of the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents publicly announced his intention to stay on the board overseeing Wisconsin’s higher education system after his term expires. And the law appears to be on his side. The background here is a case involving an appointed member of Wisconsin’s Natural Resources Board who refused to step down after his term expired in 2021. The individual argued that he could serve until the Wisconsin State Senate approved his successor. Historically Senate approval for gubernatorial appointees was a pro forma exercise in Wisconsin. However, in this hyper-political moment the Republican-controlled Senate refused to vote on the Democratic Governor’s appointments. Wisconsin’s elected Supreme Court, in a split decision, agreed that an appointee could serve after their term ended if no replacement had been approved by the Senate.

I suppose a continuity argument could be made. If the Senate is not in session and someone’s term is up, there may be a logic to allowing someone to remain in an appointed position until the Senate meets. However, Wisconsin’s Senate has made a habit of not approving appointees, creating situations like what is currently happening with the aforementioned member of the Board of Regents. In other words, the historical norm of approving appointees has become another partisan political battlefield.

In a vacuum, one appointee not stepping down when their terms ends will not matter all that much. But the situation is larger than one appointee, it speaks to the continued erosion of governing norms in Wisconsin, and the larger encroachment of partisan politics into basic governing tasks. Norms are tricky things. They can perpetuate inequities when they favor one group over another. Hence some norms do need to change as society evolves. But the unwritten rules of governance also serve the larger purpose of enabling governing to function. As I have written many times in this column, governing is different than politics. When everything becomes about political advantage basic governing tasks do not get done.

The larger risk is governing paralysis. If our basic democratic governing institutions cannot function for the betterment of society people will naturally lose faith in their government. Most frightening, people may lose faith in democracy itself, turning towards autocratic models that are neither representative nor stable. I do not know the overall answer to these challenges, but I do think some basic advice I often give my children is relevant. Just because you can do something, i.e., that something is technically allowed, does not mean you should.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance. He also serves as the Director for the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research.  

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