More About Boxes

I have written before about moving the boxes as it relates to what level of government provides a service. If a service isn’t working at one level of government, move it to another. Decision-makers or critics often look for an organizational solution when there is a problem. Related to this is the tendency to create another management structure by moving the boxes when the current arrangement is not working.

In my previous position there was an elected executive who also had legislative responsibilities. She was the top administrator, that is, responsible for implementing policy, yet also part of the legislative body with other elected officials. This worked great when those who were elected to the positions could maintain positive relationships and were dedicated to good government. There were times when that was not the case. I can remember having conversations with a newspaper editor about wouldn’t it just be better if the executive position was separate and perhaps appointed. I would come back with “It’s the people not the boxes.”

In my current position, the top executive/administrative position is appointed by the elected body. The person in that position made our work easier because management was receptive to our audits. He valued our audit work as another piece of important information. Not once has he been defensive about our findings or interpreted them as a statement about his performance. I am hopeful that a person with similar qualities can be found now that he is leaving because I know from past experience that it’s the people in the boxes, not the box, which makes the difference. I have my fingers crossed.

Why have a fraud hotline?

This is why. I don't think this happens often, but sometimes an anonymous hot line is the only way to find out. Nothing establishes tone at the top like action taken when unethical behavior is detected.

Assigning blame where it belongs

Steve Duin, a columnist in the Oregonian, wrote today about a settlement with the family of a man who died as a result of his actions and those of public officials after his arrest. Many were involved including the arresting officers, jail staff, and the ambulance personnel. The columnist worries that without the exercise of a trial that will assign blame, there will be no motivation to change. I think there should be accountability in the system, but does assigning blame motivate employees to change?

An audit steps back and looks at the structure that allowed employees to make bad decisions. When I meet with auditees, I always tell them we are auditing a program's or service's performance, not the employee's performance. What was the tone at the top or the climate that allowed police to believe that a man urinating in a trendy neighborhood required a forceful police reaction? Are police trained to recognize that sometimes a person's actions can be the result of mental illness? Do personnel treat all medical emergencies with the same urgency and care? What is the procedure for medical personnel at the jail to make medical decisions? Should medical personnel at the jail and police reassess a person's medical condition before transporting to a hospital to determine the current urgency of the situation? Training, procedures, and the management climate can make for better outcomes. An audit would review all of those and assign blame, but not to the individual, instead to the services that failed. Then maybe there would be change.

Tone at the very top

I've written before about tone at the top, here and here, and how important it is. No matter how many rules are written, the bottom line is people. The people that do the work, from top to bottom, must be committed to ethical behavior. I believe it is in the nature of people to act ethically, but if the leadership creates a climate that does not encourage that behavior, then actions tend to drift to the margins.

Our new president, Barack Obama, took actions in his first days that signaled the new tone at the top. If you look at his first ever, yes first, executive orders and memoranda you see how the tone has changed. On the Freedom of Information Act he issued this statement, "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears." On transparency he states, "My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use." He also signed several order regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists that puts us back into ethical behavior.

Thank you!

Sex, Drug Use and Graft! and Tone at the Top

The importance of the auditing function has been in the news several times this week, at least at the federal level. The inspector general of the Interior Department testified before the House on September 10th. He accused high-level officials of tolerating ethical failure and allowing such things as cronyism to cover-ups of incompetence. The NY Times ran an editorial on September 11th titled "Anything goes, apparently."

One of the important things that has evolved in auditing, especially after many of the large ethical failures, is the interest in an audit to address tone at the top. Nothing is more critical to an organization than to have explicit ethical standards that are publicized, reinforced, and followed by all from the top to the bottom. Without that an organization runs the risk of having a situation where "anything goes."

Tone at the Top

Regarding the audit by the Government Accountability Office I mentioned in an earlier post, it is disappointing to note that lawmakers are only criticizing the DOD audit agency for not following standards. Of course they should have. Audit management made many mistakes, including not assigning adequately trained staff, not providing supervision, and placing too much emphasis on meeting timelines. But what is not being discussed is the climate that exists that allows this kind of pressure to be put on auditors. When an auditor is not fully independent from the agency it audits, relationships develop and subtle, or not so subtle, pressures can occur to be "part of the team." Unfortunately, an auditor can't be part of the team. The auditor is part of the bigger team, the one that works for good government.