Accountability in Political and Bureaucratic Functionaries

Introduction

According to Milakovich and Gordon (2013), bureaucratic accountability is defined as the principle of political accountability applied in an effort to control bureaucratic power. This accountability is enforced through legislative and executive channels. A system of checks-and-balances ensures accountability between agencies and political entities. The core idea behind accountability is that it permits an entity to exercise delegated authority and discretion when making decisions, while still requiring that entity to adhere to established rules. This implies that individuals performing particular tasks within public administration must be accountable and must carry out their roles in the best way possible.

However, this is not always the case. Some individuals attempt to create shortcuts in order to receive personal benefits in the performance of their duties. This is what occurred in Tennessee, resulting in two major scandals: Operation Rocky Top and Operation Tennessee Waltz. These corruption scandals brought to light the critical importance of accountability within public administration, particularly in Tennessee. The failure of the administration to have proper legal systems in place — systems that would have guarded against such misconduct — is what allowed these massive corruption schemes to unfold. Legislators should also be aware of the ethical principles that govern their specific roles, because the absence of ethical conduct contributed directly to these scandals.

The lack of ethical values and principles causes society to spiral downward. The two scandals clearly demonstrated what can go wrong within public administration, and it is vital to examine how such events can be prevented in the future. Corruption in any form should be discouraged and eliminated within public administration in order to guarantee that implemented policies genuinely benefit the community and its citizens.

Ethics Enforcement

There should be strict regulations and policies in place to deter public officials from making unethical decisions. Tennessee should ensure that all state lawmakers understand the state will not tolerate corrupt actions. Ethical policies should be structured in a manner that ensures monies lost to corruption are recouped and that state lawmakers are held accountable for their unethical actions (Yolles, 2016). Many people find it challenging to adhere to a code of ethics. In order to address this challenge, the state could hold ongoing conferences or training programs that teach ethical policies and standards. In this way, lawmakers would have a clear understanding of what is required of them and how they should handle their daily responsibilities to the general public.

With ethical policies in place, there will be improved accountability among lawmakers as well as between the administration and the public. Ethical enforcement would also ensure that the public receives what it needs in a timely manner, lending the administration the integrity necessary to foster community trust. An atmosphere of trust benefits the administration because the public will be confident that it is working with the community's best interests in mind (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013). Increased public trust also gives lawmakers an opportunity to formulate legislation that will be viewed positively by the public.

Ethical enforcement also entails having a system that encourages whistleblowing. Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring that lawmakers abide by established policies and that corruption is curbed before it grows out of hand. They are a vital part of public administration because they bring forth information that might not otherwise be easy to uncover. Using such information, the public administration can expose grand schemes that would have gone unnoticed. It is therefore vital that Tennessee maintain a formal whistleblower scheme and a protection policy. Without a guarantee of protection, most people would not be willing to disclose sensitive information. The state should have a proper mechanism in place that actively promotes whistleblower reporting. Moreover, when lawmakers know that the state has a robust whistleblower policy, they are less likely to participate in unethical schemes. Many advocates have noted that whistleblower protection is one of the most effective means of ensuring accountability among public officials (Potter, 2016). The negative consequences that whistleblowers can face underscore why appropriate protection is indispensable.

Formation of Laws and Regulations

The state should ensure it creates laws and regulations requiring all lawmakers to adhere to both the state and national constitutions. These laws should clearly denounce corruption and enforce accountability through checks-and-balances. Any lawmaker who does not follow the established laws and regulations should be held accountable and face formal charges. This would make lawmakers more vigilant and less willing to engage in corrupt dealings. There should also be laws governing how new bills are introduced and the degree of public participation required before a bill is passed. This would ensure that lawmakers cannot exploit their authority to advance bills in which they have a personal vested interest.

In the case of the Tennessee Waltz scandal, lawmakers used available loopholes to pass what appeared to be an innocent bill concerning the recycling of computer equipment. The bill may have had surface-level merits, but it was passed primarily because lawmakers had received kickbacks and other benefits. Had a law required meaningful public participation before passage, the public would have asked questions the lawmakers could not have answered. There should also be laws that prohibit lawmakers from championing bills in which they have a direct personal interest. Lawmakers should not hold sole authority over the formulation and passage of bills; unchecked power in this area creates conditions ripe for corruption.

With proper regulation, lawmakers would find it considerably harder to engage in corrupt dealings because they would be unable to deliver on illicit promises (Hassan, Wright, & Yukl, 2014). The Tennessee Waltz sting operation was launched only after suspicion of corrupt lawmakers made it necessary to gather evidence — the very existence of that suspicion indicates that existing laws and regulations were insufficient deterrents. There should therefore be more punitive consequences for any lawmaker caught or credibly accused of corruption. Such measures would serve a preventive function and dissuade officials from engaging in corrupt behavior in the first place.

Conclusion

There should be no corruption in public administration. Corruption means that only a small number of individuals benefit from state resources, while the broader community suffers as corrupt practices are allowed to continue. The scandals that have affected Tennessee have damaged the state's reputation and eroded community trust in its leadership. In order to restore that trust, there is a need for proper laws and regulations that enforce severe punishments for any state officer or lawmaker caught participating in corruption.

Ethical conduct has also been shown to be effective in ensuring that lawmakers do not participate in corrupt dealings. Without an internalized ethical framework, individuals are likely to view ethical guidelines as obstacles to be circumvented rather than standards to uphold. Punitive measures may further discourage lawmakers from engaging in unlawful dealings or accepting kickbacks in exchange for supporting specific bills. Regulations requiring public scrutiny of all bills before they are passed would make it considerably more difficult for lawmakers to advance personal agendas or quietly pass legislation that serves their own interests. Together, these reforms offer a pathway toward a more accountable, ethical, and transparent public administration in Tennessee.

References

Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2014). Ethical and unethical leadership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 343–359.

Hassan, S., Wright, B. E., & Yukl, G. (2014). Does ethical leadership matter in government? Effects on organizational commitment, absenteeism, and willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 333–343.

Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public Administration in America. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Potter, M. R. (2016). Reconciling ethical asymmetry in agency oversight: Striving for eudaimonia among legislative staff in West Virginia. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 7(2), 137.

Yolles, M. (2016). Governance through political bureaucracy: An agency approach.