 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Elected
officials perfectly at ease on sidelinesMarch 21, 2007 |
March 21, 2007
One reason the well-publicized
fiasco at Walter Reed occurred was the abdication by
Congress of much of its oversight role. Not long ago, it
would’ve been a member of Congress, not the Washington
Post, who blew the whistle, and sooner. Both parties
failed because both parties have seriously reduced the
ability of their congressional members to ride herd on the
federal bureaucracy.
“Power hungry politician” is an often inaccurate cliche. Most pols don’t really want many powers because having them brings the responsibility to use them. Policy wonks, prevalent at all levels of government and generally making up the bureaucratic class that politicians once attempted to control, are the beneficiaries. Two of Arizona’s longest-serving members of Congress, both Vietnam veterans whom I believe DO care about other veterans, are Sen. John McCain and former Rep. Jim Kolbe. Both were powerful members of the Congressional majority for years. Both would continually sidestep constituent problems with the federal bureaucracy by stating that the “separation of powers” kept them from being directly involved. Many types of “involvement” could even lead to “ethics charges” being brought. Not so for our first couple of centuries. Members of Congress were supposed to get involved. That was before MBA’s and all those management principles that never have fit government. The current dominant strain in running governments, appealing to the laziness inherent in many pols, is avoidance of any supervision by those elected usually masked with the pejorative “micro-management.” That has eaten the heart of representative government for much of the last century to the benefit of a multitude of unelected bureaucrats who have filled the power void. Consider the Pima County Board of Supervisors. Since the late 1980’s, they’ve had a “non-interference” ordinance, common in many other jurisdictions and considered enlightened by those knowing little about how government actually works. Constituents would formerly call their local Supe (or council member, or Congressman) with a problem. Supe — or Supe’s aide — would call the correct bureaucrat to fix it. No more. Supe must now go through the county manager (or CEO) and ask that person to respond. This diverts Supes from actually knowing what’s happening with the rules they pass (and sometimes even read) by discouraging citizens from contacting them with problems in the first place. The impetus for converting our Board of Supervisors (note the specific job title) to the Board of Onlookers was the laziness of at least one member, the ham-fisted approach to dealing with the bureaucracy of another and at least one capable member who had already figured out how to game the system. Other jurisdictions have their own stories. This retreat and submission by those we elect has contributed to the lack of respect we show them. The bug-a-boo always used to justify this form of non-feasance is micro-management, which is not the real culprit. One of too many examples to list of its proper usage comes from the memoirs of a Union officer who’s brigade headquarters was visited by General Sherman. Sherman immediately ordered the re-positioning of an artillery battery and modified the placement of a regiment — classic micro-management. There’s another great micro-manager, George Patton. Check the part of the movie where the battalion commander and his exec are trying to figure out how to cross a river when Patton calls to them from the other side, busts the colonel and gives the major an hour to get over or he’ll bust him, too. Similar stories abound about other great military leaders from Saladin to Chesty Puller, Nathaniel Greene to Matt Ridgway. LEADING differs from MANAGING. Modern management principles have now become popular in the military. That’s why we often get our butts kicked. In the civilian sector, it’s why thousands of trailers bought for Katrina victims are still empty and why children get lost in state care systems. And why nobody did anything about housing at Walter Reed. We could use more micro-managing. We need less onlookers. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
