Accountability in public offices 2 Accountability in public offi ✓ Solved

```html

Analyze and explain which is a better accountability measure, external or internal controls or the character of the administrator. The current administration has become more complex making it more difficult to secure the responsibilities of administrators. There has been a public debate regarding whether accountability of administrators should be based on the internal or external control, or administrators character.

The most effective accountability measure is the incorporation of both internal and external control measures. Both control measures have their weaknesses and strengths. As such, combining both control measures would be effective since the weaknesses of one control measure would be outweighed by the strength of the other control measure. Internal control refers to the implementation of internal policies that will guide the actions of administrators in public offices. On the contrary external control involves the use of laws and regulations to guide the actions of the administrators.

Internal control should be used in public offices because it ensures effective prevention of fraud. If internal controls are implemented in organizations, it helps in holding administrators more accountable since it ensures that they adhere to policies that specifically promote the success of a public organization. This is especially true if the laws and regulations are too general to be applied in a specific public organization. If internal controls are implemented in an organization, it can be easier for administrators to be evaluated based on the goals of the office. This implies that internal controls make it easier to monitor and detect fraud in public offices.

In addition, internal controls ensure effective segregation of duties in public offices. For example, through internal controls, those handling cash should not be allowed to deal with the reconciliation of financial records. Such segregation is vital because it ensures that no money is lost or stolen without being detected on time. Moreover, such segregation of duties through internal controls helps in identifying administrators who are not carrying out their responsibilities effectively. This is crucial because it enables public offices to implement more effective solutions or alternatives early enough.

Even though internal controls of administrators in public offices are effective, they have some limitations which require their combination with external controls. For example, one of the limitations of implementing internal controls alone is that it may encourage administrators in a public office to manipulate internal policies in order to suit their selfish interests. For instance, those handling cash and those dealing with financial records reconciliation may collaborate to override the internal controls system. This collaborative manipulation can enable them to steal from the government without being detected. Additionally, internal controls may be affected by common human errors, which make it difficult to detect theft timely.

For this reason, external controls should be aligned with the goals and internal policies of public offices. Through external controls, a public office can be monitored by auditors who will ensure that administrators comply with the laws and regulations. External controls are especially effective since public offices are not managed by boards of directors unlike in the private sectors. With external auditors, it may be difficult for public administrators to collaborate among themselves in engaging in fraudulent activities. However, some laws and regulations may not be clear enough to be applicable in some public offices, leading to challenges in effective implementation.

This can lead to the implementation of sustainable measures of control. Moreover, there may be a shortage of expertise and time which could hinder the external controls processes. As such, both internal and external controls of accountability should be implemented in public offices.

Public service has been said to be a noble call because of the nature of the work involved and the goals of public service. For instance, public service involves offering public goods while meeting the needs of all citizens in a country. This implies that public servants are expected to work based on the interests of citizens and not their own or their families’ interests. For these goals to be realized, there is a need for public servants to be selfless and to sacrifice. Public administration should focus on recruiting and rewarding people who are driven by their willingness to satisfy the needs of all citizens in the country.

Viewing public service as the highest and noble cost can be evaluated based on the level of trust the public has in the government. Based on the level of trust in the government, most citizens do not believe that public services are a noble call. Historically, the level of trust in the federal government has been low. According to a study conducted in Washington, only 19 percent of citizens in the US trust the government. This low level of trust in the government has been persistent since the year 1960s. The erosion of public trust has been experienced due to various events. For example, in the year 1964, the level of trust in the country decreased due to events such as the Vietnam War and civil unrest. Similarly, the September 11 attacks in 2001 caused a reduction in the level of trust as the public perceived the government as incapable of addressing their security needs.

Another factor that contributes to citizens not believing that public service is a calling is the corruption of some civil servants. For public service to be a calling, it must focus on the interests of the public rather than those of public servants. However, corruption demonstrates that some public servants prioritize their self-interests, which leads to a lower level of trust in public service. The US is among leading nations fighting against corruption, specifically among public officials. Nevertheless, cases of corruption, such as bribery, diminish public confidence in public service.

To promote the perception of public service as a noble calling, there is a need to increase transparency while offering public services. Enhanced transparency will help rebuild public trust. Furthermore, the excessive use of force by police against citizens has also contributed to reduced public trust in public service. Discriminatory practices, especially against certain ethnic groups, exacerbate this mistrust. Incidents of police brutality, such as those reported in 2015 when officers killed numerous individuals, disproportionately affected African Americans and perpetuated the belief that there is bias within public service sectors. Such occurrences can diminish the public's belief in public service as a noble endeavor.

In conclusion, to argue that public service is a noble calling, it is essential to ensure equality in delivering services and reduce corruption. A commitment to transparency and accountability, alongside effective internal and external controls, can help restore trust in public offices and elevate public service's status as a noble calling.

References

• Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(summer 1941), 335–350.
• Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C. J. Friedrich & E. S. Mason (Eds.), Public policy (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kennedy, R. (2016). Excessive use of force by the public police against black Americans in the United States. Retrieved from: rfkhumanrights.org/.../iachr_thematic_hearing_submission_-_excessive_use_of_force_b.
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Beyond distrust: How Americans view their government.
• Sample Reference 1
• Sample Reference 2
• Sample Reference 3
• Sample Reference 4
• Sample Reference 5
• Sample Reference 6

```