Analyzing Law Policy and Management Brief

¶ … policy, law and management. It is based on a particular background that has been provided. Law, Policy, and Management Brief: Models of Court-Agency Interaction Courts play a very significant role as they interact with administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are beyond the influence of the technical processes that are applied in courts of trial. The rules that are used in court trials are not applicable in the proceedings of agencies.

Moreover, agencies also have the power to outline the rules that will govern the proceedings of the agency when there is no statutory provision. The agencies have been given broad discretion when it comes to creating rules to govern proceeding (Administrative Agency Adjudications - Administrative Law). However, the agencies do not have the power to act like the legislature when creating procedural rules. The jurisdiction of agencies is the power that the law gives them to make judgment in controversies.

In administrative law, there are three aspects of jurisdiction: the authority of the agency under statute, subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. When statutory power to give consideration to a matter is absent, an agency lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The responsibility of courts, when it comes to administrative agencies concerns case dispersal. The rules and regulations that administrative agencies make can be regarded as law. The agencies assist in disposing minor and complex cases quickly, and therefore play a major part in assisting U.S. courts.

This helps the judiciary to reserve its resources for more important cases (Administrative Agencies - U.S. Legal System). Administrative agency members have a lot of expertise in their respective areas. Administrative agencies have the ability to come up with their own rules and regulations. They specialize in particular issues where they can apply their expertise. Article 1 Section 1 involving the constitution has established administrative agencies' authority and area of responsibility.

It states: "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Therefore, in my opinion something should be done to create a balance between the agency's expertise and the scrutiny of the decisions that the agency makes. Therefore, what role is the court supposed to play in public administration? What is the fundamental nature and characteristics of courts? By committing the slightest offence, one could experience the unpleasant consequences of the law.

The court system has the power to alter laws and implement them. This process has a significant impact on the administration of the public. Therefore, the government's judicial arm has played a key role in public policy formation. It is pertinent to look at the relationship between public administrators and courts. In the recent past, the annulling of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) was the Supreme Court's most significant ruling since it had an impact on the administrators' policy development process.

The DADT was a discriminative policy on the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community in the U.S. Military and was an indication of the existence of problems and conflicts between the LGBT community and the U.S. Military. Enacted under the administration of Clinton in 1993, DADT admonished service members against the revelation of their sexual preference. It also prohibited applicants who were openly gay from military service (Vaz, 2015). The use of 'discretion' seems to be the core of job security in the military.

The Supreme Court thus allowing fearless and indiscriminative service in the military repealed the legislation. Forty years ago, had anyone made an enquiry on the judiciary's impact on public administration, numerous lawyers would have been puzzled by the question. They would soon conclude that no impact existed apparently. Until ten or fifteen years ago, public administrators who worked in a structured advocacy system, whose primary concerns were issues such as ratemaking were the only ones who were subjected to regular review by the court.

However, the absence of the court's involvement in the day-to-day activities of public administrators does not necessarily mean that agency processes were running perfectly and did not need to be reviewed or restrained (Bazelon, 1976). The absence of involvement gives no explanation why the absence occurred. Even in cases where the court interceded in the administration procedure in the last four decades, the influence it had was not generally thought to be positive or beneficial.

Those who happened to find themselves under the burden and delay caused by the court reviews would rather have hearings, written opinions, record evidence and the procedural dues- as well as second-guessing good deeds that occurred occasionally eliminated. In case the courts provide solutions, another set of challenges comes up. Courts do not have the ability to devote money to a special purpose. Although courts can order desegregation, they cannot guarantee to make it happen at all times.

Chief Justice Burger suggested some proposals, some of which are new with the aim of keeping the federal courts free of some grievances (Bazelon, 1976). The impact of these reforms relies on the type of grievances involved and the alternative forums that will be provided. This author prefers procedures of internal review to process complaints at the level of administration. Administrators will have a chance to correct the mistakes they make, and reduce the number of times they have to defend decisions that they do not in support, in court.

In addition, when the judicial department is requested to review a grievance that has been examined fully in administrative proceedings, the review could then be based mainly on the proceedings' written record. This will not require a cumbersome trial that takes a lot of time. This minimizes judicial review's main objections. However, this collaboration has its fair share of consequences. Diana Woodhouse, in the article "Public Administration and the Courts, a clash of values," stated that the civil service's radical reform occurred at the same time with judicial activism.

The article investigated the court's role on public administration and the impact of more judiciary intervention into public administration (Vaz, 2015). According to her, although the courts' principles are quite similar to those of the traditional public administration model, they may not be consistent with those that are driven towards efficiency, measured in monetary value. Woodhouse concludes that judges and administrators would now benefit from an Administrative Practice Code more than ever. Collaborative governance suffers one problem that has been noted by many, imbalances of power among the stakeholders.

In case some stakeholders have limited capacity, status, resources, or wherewithal to participate on the same level with the rest, the process of collaborative governance is likely to be manipulated by participants who are much stronger. For instance, Bradford draws attention to the fact that the Government of Ontario's attempts to make occupational health and safety as well as training for jobs policy were countered by the firms' privileged status. The firms used "informal channels" to contact the senior officials.

Imbalances such as these ultimately lead to distrust and lack of commitment (Ansell and Gash, 2007). Environmental groups in the U.S. are very skeptical when it comes to collaborative governance since they believe that it could give industry groups an upper hand. Echeverria has criticized the Platte River Collaborative Watershed Planning Process. He argues that the table for negotiations is not just, and is more interested in development. He holds that environment advocates and interests of development do not have equal capacities.

Considering the large size and diffusion of their constituency, advocates of conservation are disadvantaged routinely when in contests against representatives whose economic interests are more organized and cohesive (Ansell and Gash, 2007). Schuckman states that collaborative processes will be biased against environment organizations if strong countermeasures and neutral leadership of the agency are not put in place to represent the weaker voices. Cooperation between stakeholders will facilitate collaboration while antagonism will be a hindrance.

This is an idea that has never received much consideration: how in their capacity, do courts have the ability to control the public administration process.