The development of the American Bureaucracy is punctuated with incidents of tension, conflict and controversy. The variety and breadth of these episodes varies from public outrage concerning the "spoils system", shortly after President Garfield's assassination, to comparatively minor events such as relatively feeble opposition to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Underpinning many of these conflicts, however, was the misperception that Constitutional guarantees of equal treatment under the law, freedom of expression, the right-to-work, and freedom from invasion of privacy were being infringed by an overly cumbersome, invasive and "undemocratic" bureaucratic apparatus.

Early in the formation of the Civil Service, as fundamental structures were being forged, planners foresaw the critical importance of preserving the integrity of the Bureaucracy, while ensuring that no constitutional provision was jeopardized. Frequently, throughout the Presidential Administrations which followed Jefferson, this was a delicate balancing act, characterized at various periods in history by iniquity, malfeasance, and corruption. As the Bureaucracy matured, public administrators, at all governmental levels formulated policies and procedures to guard against excesses and strengthen the rules of accountability.

Tensions surfaced, however, as recently as the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. These socio-political forces, springing from Congress, PAC Committees, and special interest groups, sought to reform various agencies, practices, or policies which seemed anathema to their goals and objectives. Many of these crises were founded in theoretical disputes, but had surfaced in the form of practical considerations. Surely, the federal programs guaranteeing freedom from basic "want", such as AFDC, Medicare, Food Stamps, or HUD assistance, were fraught with debate, dissension, and conflict during these years. Many debates dealt with issues of democratic ideals and guarantees being "undermined" by ever-aggressive and all-engulfing agencies, as viewed from the perspective of "rights" advocates.

It can be validly asserted, on the contrary, that the American Bureaucracy has evolved in recent decades toward an equitably-based and procedurally sophisticated "engine of government" which has developed suitable mechanisms for avoiding obvious violations and incursions against American democratic ideals. Nonetheless, abuses and excesses do occur, particularly in major federally subsidized assistance programs affecting an ever-growing segment of the general population.

There are several overriding factors which influence both favorable and unfavorable performance on the part of the bureaucracy and its employees. According to Chester Barnard, the common denominator of "human nature" is among the most influential determinants of proper functioning at the individual level (Fry, 1989: 160). Mary Parker Follett also speaks eloquently (in her theoretical model centered on group process) about the dynamics of human interaction and its impact on quality, integrity, and efficiency of service within government agencies, and between the public and the bureaucracy. This point of contact is the most frequent source of friction between constitutionally guaranteed rights and agency-imposed procedures and rulings. When "official" standards, reflected in bureaucratic practices, conflict with human needs, especially those provided for under existing law, tension arises as a natural outgrowth of the gap between policy and reality.

Several types of tension, are possible between government agencies and the democratic ideals they were designed to shield, protect, and honor. When government ceases to serve the interests of the people, and begins to encroach on fundamental values, tensions lead to dissatisfaction, protest and social pressure aimed at the offending agency or policy.

Examining the area of Human Resources Management with some care may prove useful to an understanding of tension-avoidance in the personnel sector, with implications for labor relations, "fair practice" legislation and "evaluation-related" issues. If full and equitable cooperation among all members of a given agency is not forthcoming, then perceived denial of rights or entitlements under the law could result. Agency "structure" is part and parcel of the power hierarchy of any organization; if such power is abused at any level, a similar perception of denial of democratically ensured rights could ensue, creating disruption and ill-feeling among staff at any level, including the upper echelons..

In the field of Human Resources Management, one of the primary objectives would seem to be elimination of the appearance of iniquitous treatment or unfair practices, whether in (a) evaluation of performance, (b) realignment of Merit System criteria, (c) hiring , or (d) termination procedures. The misuse of power in these all-crucial categories would constitute clear-cut denial of fundamental democratic rights. Fortunately, the American Bureaucracy has devised certain safeguards to reprimand those employees who would play discriminatory games with job applicants, current employees or those terminating employment.

There is also the entire range of genuine "worker participation", as clarified by Mary Parker Follett, within the Human Resources Management context. With such broad-based participatory interaction, at all levels of the hierarchical pyramid, there are increasing chances of avoiding confrontations, scandals and unrest such as occurred under early American Administrations, notably those of Garfield, Arthur, and later under Harding.

Such "confrontation" can be avoided by examining the dynamics of power relationships. By redefining "power", perhaps as an adjunct to collective bargaining sessions, originally introduced in 1912, at which employees negotiate conditions and terms of employment, it may be possible to retain structure (thus avoiding managerial chaos) and still move toward egalitarian principles, reflecting democratic values, without intra-bureaucratic tension.

Glancing at the "budget" process, at Federal, State, and Local levels, it becomes clear that one fiscal year's allocations very often reflect the next year's priorities, as well. This repetitive budgeting process entrenches agencies and programs which may, or may not be in the best interest of society. To the extent that the budgeting process finances controversial programs on a pre-ordained often politically expedient basis, the democratic rights of all citizens may be infringed.

Aaron Wildavsky, in his book entitled The New Politics of the Budgetary Process, speaks eloquently of the mechanisms in place currently, and in the recent past, to structure spending in the "national interest", through top-down capital budgeting. He reasons that if "authority" were to originate at the grass-roots level, the nation's special interest groups, sprawling agencies and spendthrift state entities would be budgeting funds on an essentially uncontrollable basis. Bottom-up budgetary control is therefore inadvisable, he feels. While democratic ideals may be served, he implies, the broader interests of the Nation may be harmed. Wildavsky's discussion of the budgeting process goes to the heart of the matter: Which priorities will be selected and to what degree will this selection process affect the well-being of society in the medium and long term? Democratic ideals, it can be ascertained, are clearly at risk in this process which can prove arduous and complex. Specialists have, however, erected roadblocks and obstacles which should prevent major damage to the nation's population or well being as a whole.

Ethical considerations in the constant tug-of-war between running an efficient, streamlined bureaucracy and, yet, avoiding a direct clash with rights, entitlements, and privileges set forth in the Nation's most cherished documents, are of paramount importance. The U.S. bureaucracy, in recent years, has undergone a number of reform processes (i.e., Reinventing Government, Civil Service Reform Acts, Congressional legislative initiatives, and semi-privatization) which have enabled it to adjust to shifting priorities. These reforms naturally, have also dwelt on the establishment of codes of ethical conduct and procedural guidelines to prevent overtly unethical practices: influence-peddling abuse of patronage, nepotism, racism, and so forth.

Herbert A. Simon, in the model he proposes for making decisions, addresses certain aspects of ethics which apply not only to decision-making but also to more broad-based applications throughout government. He developed the notion of "procedural devices" which ensure that ethical values and sensitive issues are handled by elected officials who are accountable to the public. Administrators on the other hand, are responsible for enforcing community values (Fry, 1989: 187). These types of controls have permitted the U.S. Bureaucracy, in general, to improve its image in recent years.

Overall, the tensions which occasionally arise between constitutional guarantees and government agencies with respect to ethical concerns are defused through the judiciary and through arbitration, with legal assistance where required. If a welfare recipient feels that he or she has been discriminated against, there are legal channels which can examine the ethical and fair-practices legislation in effect for that specific issue. Recourse is slow and ponderous, but generally the recipient is vindicated after a series of hearings and appeals.

If equitable enforcement of ethical considerations is deemed pivotal to proper administration and operation of the bureaucracy, so, too, are methods of reducing tension between government and democratic ideals in the area of Organization Theory. It has already been noted that "hierarchical structure' is a power-base concept, granting authority to superiors in charge of various functions. Many anti-governmental critics see flaws in this system which essentially empowers some individuals to control the destinies of others. In this type of reasoning lies the basis for tension between democracy and governmental authority -- both within agencies, and externally in relation to the public.

Max Weber, one of the original theorists, whose concepts formed the foundations of modern public administration, seems to have established the very heart of a system which incorporates (a) domination over others, (b) exercise of power and (c) the perception that this "non-egalitarian" model is, in fact, legitimate (Fry, 1989: 39). Organization Theory, therefore, assumes that Americans are willing to suspend a portion of their purely democratic rights in exchange for ensuring public order and societal control. The extent of this control-factor fluctuates and is sometimes the source of frustration or tension. If agency structures or policies on the macro-scale, affecting entire cities or states, for example, are improperly implemented, or are organizationally unsound to begin with, from a structural standpoint, pressure from the constituency involved will usually, through elections, recall proceedings, or citizens' groups, bring about the desired changes.

If organization theory can impact the relationship between government and democratic ideals, as we have observed, so research, in certain areas, and not in others, can produce a distorted view of the actual situation. Often, if methods are unprofessional or poorly designed, data produced can be artificially skewed, distorted or simply misleading. Surely, research must be conducted to determine the demographics or characteristics of a given region or sector; however, care must be exercised to avoid the politicization of the research project underway. False data can infringe on democratic rights and guarantees, through intentional or unintentional manipulation of questions, answers or by means of marginally acceptable mathematical models used to produce dubious results. Safeguards are called for at all levels of government, and have been implemented, in this country at least, to ensure that funding of major research studies, polls and surveys (likely to affect public policy, or agency procedures) is properly cross-validated by independent researchers. It is the responsibility of executive administrators to ensure reliance on, and compliance with, standard, ethical practices when conducting research.

In the area of research standards, Luther H. Gulick has published and written widely. His insistence that "the bureau" focus on scientific methods of collating, categorizing and publishing properly researched facts has been recognized as a valid emphasis by other theorists (Fry, 1989: 87). The importance of not impinging on the rights of the public, through poorly conducted, distorted research is well understood by all responsible professionals in the field of public administration. To become somewhat more specific, Likert Scales, for example, can lead to distortion quite readily; as can improperly performed multiple regression and multivariate research models. Care must be taken to avoid research which will, or even might, jeopardize the rights of others, rights guaranteed under the Constitution or under legislation protecting equal access to such basic entitlements as Medicare, for example, a program found to be easily undermined by distorted or unethically skewed research.

Operating on the basic principles enunciated above, the sub-specialization of policy analysis", a process within public administration which requires objectivity, assessment skills and interpretive expertise, is also a sensitive zone of potential tension between the bureaucracy and democratic values. If policy analysis is not carried out, or implemented, properly, massive adverse affects on the rights of inter-agency employees, or the public, can ensue.

At the heart of policy analysis lies an evaluative process culminating in decision-making, either in a hierarchal sense or by group-concession. There are, according to Chester Barnard, "nonlogical processes" which enter into this equation (Fry, 1989: 171). When formulating policy, all logical and nonlogical reasoning must be judiciously weighed in order to ensure non-infringement of basic rights under the law. Mere impressions, emotions, and unfounded sentiments have no place in the proper policy analysis process. Overt, or even subtle, violation of basic rights must be avoided at all costs within agencies and in terms of their interactions with the public, on the basis of policy formulated under the precepts of "policy analysis" strategies.

Given all of these potentially damaging scenarios involving distorted research models, policy analysis bias, human resources mismanagement and so forth, how can avoidance of infringing democratic rights be achieved? Accountability is the answer in an overall sense. By holding government employees responsible for their actions, it is theoretically possible to avoid abuse of power and infringement of democratically based rights. Surely the free election process in this country results in high-level functionaries being held accountable directly to the public for their actions; however, in the absence of this time-honored method, what solutions remain for lower-echelon employees (in non-elective posts) who may feel tempted to overstep their authority? We could reply tentatively to this question essentially as follows.

It is important to recognize that the U.S. Bureaucracy has evolved over 200 years, and has adopted fairly efficiently, even under stress, for purposes of serving the broader interests of the public. Checks and balances have been incorporated with this still-evolving administrative system, at all levels of government, to produce basically honest and conscientious employees. Yet, potential misbehavior must be controlled. There have been both incentives and disincentives used to encourage compliance with norms and standards.

Examination of several incentives, perks or benefits on the positive side of the ledger to hold employees into patterns of compliance might prove enlightening. Almost all major theorists acknowledged the appropriateness of incentives, to explore responsible conduct on-the-job. Mary Parker Follett, for example, in addition to ensuring that all employees felt "a part" of the organization, suggested that incentives be used to ensure accountability for actions -- or for avoiding non-compliance or abuse of authority in the first place (Fry, 1989:112). She was convinced of the essential "goodness" of public employees and knew that "knowledge of the law" was instrumental in ensuring proper behavior. Incentives, she agreed, helped as well. Elton Mayo, focusing on ensuring compliance, and hence accountability, was profoundly preoccupied by the importance of "sentiments and feelings" among the workers.

Incentives, according to these and other theorists, might legitimately include: salary increases, promotions, tenure options, awards, commendations, or special notations in personnel files. These positive types of rewards for ensuring adequate compliance, and proper behavior are deemed strategies which have proven most effective. The interests of accountability are thus served.

This itemization of "viable methods" for ensuring compliance, with a tightly-knit (as most are) governmental hierarchy, leads naturally to asking "to whom are bureaucrats ultimately accountable?". The answer most immediately springing to mind is the public. The democratic process assures that government serves at the pleasure of the people. But more specifically, as Weber, Taylor, and Mayo recognized, stakeholders, taxpayers, minority interests, and private organizations are also served. In terms of legal accountability, the Courts ultimately rule on major juridical issues, and the Constitution rules "supreme" over all questions in the final analysis, whether or not specific issues are mentioned within its pages.

On the microcosmic level, of course, with each agency, bureaucrats are accountable to each other on a hierarchical basis. While systems of internal agency governance may vary, it is obvious that the "principles of administration" apply to them, on this level, as throughout the government as a whole.

The highest priority for all public administrators, in spite of loyalty to his or her agency which is often a major source of allegiance and fidelity, is respect for the laws promulgated by Congress under the Constitution. The absolute authority vested in the highest ruling bodies of the Nation, clearly, must be honored prior to subordinate considerations, such as adherence to conflicting orders from superiors or agency procedures which may run counter to democratic principles. A case in point might be a well-intentional, but unconstitutional, denial of abortion counseling in rural Louisiana, when Federal Law technically permits it, under Wade v. Roe.

When the interests of several groups conflict, of course, allegiance to one's own agency is important, unless such a sense of "duty to agency" conflicts with obvious Constitutional Rulings. Example of conflict may include, on a purely hypothetical basis: (a) overly zealous law enforcement practices, (b) welfare abuse or fraudulent practices on the part of employees or recipients, (c) municipal regulations or ordinances conflicting with county, state, or federal laws.

A contentious issue in New Mexico, for illustrative purposes, might be "gambling legislation on Indian Reservations"; there is considerable potential for conflict in this sensitive matter.

In the last analysis, of course, bureaucrats are responsible to the Constitution, whether on a local, state or federal basis, for their actions. Internal accountability is certainly possible, of course, as is the "rule of the day", except for rare instances where an employee may legitimately call into doubt the constitutionality of a conflicting policy or procedure.

A preferred response on the part of any conscientious public administrator would be, of course, to draft a well-reasoned memorandum to his or her supervisor outlining the major points of contention. Any public statement, or protestation, would be considered clearly out of order.

Admittedly, the potential for unconstitutional or overly zealous actions on the part of the Bureaucracy exists. Public administrators must guard against such actions and observe all relevant procedures or constraints in effect. Accountability, whether imposed externally or internally, for all actions is a major deterrent in avoidance of tension between our Nation's hallowed democratic values and bureaucratic necessity.

Fry, Brian R. Mastering Public Administration. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.,1989.

Henry, N. Public Administration and Public Affairs. Sixth Edition. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Mosher, Frederick C. Democracy and the Public Service. Second Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Waldo, Dwight. The Administrative State. Second Edition. New York, NY Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1984.

Wildavsky, Aaron. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Second Edition. United Kingdom: Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc., 1992.