An Address by
Dick Thornburgh

1998 Fall Meeting of the National Academy of Public Administration
Washington, D.C
November 20, 1998

"Five Themes for Public Administration in the New Millennium:
Doing the 'Right Thing' and Doing the 'Thing Right'"

During the early part of this decade it was my privilege to serve as under-secretary-general for administration and management at the United Nations. A major part of my responsibilities was to try to untangle that international bureaucracy from the maze of disorder that it had inherited from the Cold War era. In that effort, I took inspiration from Academy Fellow Ed Perkins, then our permanent representative to the UN, who emphasized the need to make the organization both more effective and more efficient. He put it this way: "Being effective means doing the right thing. Being efficient means doing the thing right."

What I offer to you today are some specifics about how we might ensure that, insofar as possible, we both "do the right thing" and "do the thing right" in the field of public administration as we approach the new millennium. The themes that I will stress are applicable to everyone engaged in public enterprise--those holding elective office, those engaged in public administration in nonelected positions, and those scholars who offer important insights into all of these activities. While some of my recommendations relate to the need for more effective leadership, integrity in public office, and official accountability, you will be relieved, I am sure, to know that little of this is intended as commentary on recent events involving the President and the Office of the Independent Counsel. Indeed, what follows is largely drawn from my own quarter century in public life at the local, state, federal, and international level.

I offer those observations as guideposts in the pursuit of the public agenda in the 21st century. This will be a period during which we will all be called upon to exert ourselves to the utmost in the task of ensuring that a positive and productive relationship exists between the American people and our governmental institutions.

I
I would first underscore the vital importance of effective leadership as a key to accomplishing organizational goals. Leadership is important for both external and internal purposes in public administration. Academy Fellow John Gardner has charged our leaders with these specific tasks:
"They can express the values that hold society together. Most important, they can conceive and articulate goals that lift people out of their petty preoccupations, carry them above the conflicts that tear a society apart, and unite them in the pursuit of objectives worthy of their best efforts."

Effective leadership is obviously important for elected officials and public administrators but it is relevant to all engaged with them in common public enterprises. Clear and unambiguous signals as to what course is expected to be followed is a sine qua non for achieving success in any such endeavor.

Leadership requires vision. Despite recent denigration of "the vision thing," it is clear that the path of public administration must not only be straight and uncluttered, but must incorporate true visionary characteristics at the outset of the journey. "Where there is no vision, the people perish," the Book of Proverbs admonished us, and it is as true today of organizations as it is of the people.

Moreover, that vision must be expressed in terms of tangible goals and specific destinations. And those goals must be communicated clearly to the constituency being served. There is an educational function to leadership which is ignored at great peril. Those served must be nurtured and nourished by a steady diet of specific reminders as to where the leadership effort is bound.

Of enormous importance in this effort is the imperative of integrity. To accomplish the tasks at hand, simple competence is not enough. Just as a positive view of the integrity of leadership, what we have come to call "character," can inspire allegiance to a cause, a negative view can erode even the most sound and well-intentioned of undertakings. Part of the function of integrity in the performance of public duties is serving as a role model. Inspiring those with whom one serves to emulate the visible characteristics of the leader is clearly a means of furthering advancement toward shared goals. But it is more than that. Eric Sevareid, the famed CBS newsman, once said of President Harry Truman: "Remembering him reminds people what a man in that office ought to be like. It's character, just character." Recently there has been a view abroad that character in leadership is of lesser importance. This is a dangerous trap, it seems to me, into which leaders and those whom they seek to lead fall at their peril.

The imperative of integrity must be clearly communicated as well. One of the key lessons I have learned in my public career is that assuring integrity in any organization, from an isolated field office to a major cabinet agency, cannot be addressed indirectly. Clear and explicit signals must come from top leadership, lest any confusion exist over what is, and is not, permissible conduct. To do otherwise allows informal and potentially subversive "codes of conduct" to be transmitted with a wink and a nod, and encourages an inferior ethical system based on "going along to get along" or on the notion that "everybody's doing it." And this can erode even the best intentions in building character within an organization.

II
A second theme that I would urge as important in public administration today is that of accountability. This is really the other side of the leadership coin. Accountability depends first of all on openness and transparency in the governing process. Clarity in the setting of goals for an organization facilitates appropriate benchmarking as well as constructive evaluation. Moreover, specific delegations of authority must be the rule if we are to identify those individuals responsible for reaching agreed upon goals.

Institutions for ensuring accountability are equally important. These include internal mechanisms such as an inspector general's office, which we recommended at the United Nations and an effective criminal justice system to deal with lapses in integrity within governmental enterprises. For example, the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice established in 1976 has since prosecuted thousands of corrupt public officials at the local, state, and federal level for betrayal of the public trust, not only bringing those prosecuted to account, but creating a true deterrent capability among those who might be tempted otherwise.

Investigation and prosecution of violators is essential and I have done my share during my professional lifetime. But, as I have noted, even more important for the long-range health of the system is an aggressive and visible commitment to observing sound ethical principles before the fact, so as to encourage the best instincts of loyal public servants and to hold in check the worst instincts of others.

There is another facet of accountability which has been eroded over the last 20 years. I speak of political accountability, that is to say, the need to hold responsible for their actions those appointed to implement policy goals. Under Supreme Court holdings beginning with Elrod v. Burns, it has become increasingly difficult to assert such accountability. Courts have held that individuals in subordinate positions often have a constitutional right under the First Amendment not to be fired because of their political affiliation, regardless of how incompatible their actions might be with policy directions given from above. While no one will make the case for restoring untrammeled patronage perquisites in governmental settings, it is clear that the ability to accomplish identified goals can be effectively undermined by a "fifth column" extant within any organization.

Let me refer to one additional discouraging aspect of accountability that I encountered during my governorship of Pennsylvania. It was in the field of elementary education. During the 1980s we instituted a statewide testing program for third, fifth, and eighth grade students to help monitor their capabilities in reading and mathematics. Those who were deficient in these skills were to be given special tutoring from funds provided by the state to the school district in question. The funds were to "follow the child" and supplement the normal state subsidy available to the school district. The teachers unions violently resisted this step and secured, first of all, a legislative negation of the "follow the child" funding, substituting a lump sum pro rata appropriation for remedial services to existing subsidy payments. When I left office, the entire testing program was abandoned, one of the principal objections being that by cumulating the test scores, it was possible to compare the relative performances of school districts, and indeed schools, to determine which were exhibiting superior performance in teaching efforts. This accountability was, of course, the very goal intended, but it was anathema to the leveling instincts of the teachers' unions.

III
A third theme of importance as we approach the year 2000 is the desirability of full participation by our citizenry in the political process. It was discouraging in the extreme to learn that voter turnout in this month's national elections reached near-record low levels. And it is equally frustrating to realize that our current President was elected to office by the votes of fewer than one-quarter of those eligible to vote. These figures are tangible evidence of the alienation factor extant in our society.

Democracy is not a spectator sport. All of us must exercise the opportunity to contribute to improving and sustaining higher levels of performance in public life. This involves much more than simply being part of a focus group or responding to poll questions. And it is just as important in contests for the local school board as in those for higher office. In every case we must see that participation is open and accessible to all.

One need not be a candidate for public office to take advantage of the multitude of opportunities presented by our democratic society. My former colleague at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Academy Fellow Dick Neustadt, often lamented recent changes in political campaigning with their diminished need for what he called "scut-work by a host of volunteers" and more reliance on computer programming and media strategy. I always remind students that my introduction to politics came not as the governor of Pennsylvania, but as an elected precinct committeeman in the First District of the 14th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh. In that capacity I, in turn, introduced my 10-year old son to the rigors of campaigning by rousing him before sun-up on election day to festoon door-hangers with campaign messages throughout our neighborhood.

This kind of participation must be availed of by all. Our great progress in legislating civil rights for all Americans and in combating the denial of the full enjoyment of citizenship to anyone on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and, most recently, disability, has opened the door of opportunity for all to participate in our political and governmental processes. This opportunity is made available not through any forced or false diversity occasioned by quotas, set asides or preferences, but through the full empowerment of all citizens to play a role in our political process. I well remember within my own family the excitement we experienced when our third son Peter, who has mental retardation, cast his first vote at the polls in Pennsylvania. And I was particularly proud of my wife's effort, during my governorship, to help recruit more women candidates to participate in elections, not on a party or "issue-oriented" basis, but simply to enlarge the universe of candidates available for voter consideration.

Public administration in all aspects can only be enriched by opening opportunities for all to participate fully in as wide a variety of ways as possible.

IV
As a fourth theme let me emphasize how all endeavors in our governing process can profit from a reinvigoration of the concept of civility. Much of this, to be sure, begins at home and in our communities. How we treat and interact with family members and neighbors is eventually transferred into the public dialogue. "People deserve to be treated with respect," observed the theologian Donald McCullough, "The neglect of courtesy leads to the collapse of community." If meaningful dialogue is to take place--in a family, in a community or in government--it must be a civil dialogue. Today we are forced to endure a noticeable decline in civility -- the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. The critic Robert Hughes has noted, for example: "In America today . . . hysteria over feminism, gay rights, and abortion has filled the discourse of politics with a rancor that has few parallels in other Western democracies."

The Urban Institute's recent book, The Government We Deserve, prescribes that "[W]e step away from the manipulation of ideas and the distorted simplifications that are the downsides of our hyper-democracy. Although this rethinking must address the new immediacy of twentieth century communications technology, it responds to the age-old demand for a public discourse that is civil, rational, and knowledge-based."

Long ago, Voltaire established the marvelous principle that he could "disagree with everything you said, but defend to the death your right to say it." One wonders how he would have coped with today's "in your face" attitudes which stunt civilized discourse. Or with the concept of political correctness which seeks to impose a deadening uniformity in the name of sensitivity.

One area in public life where we suffer from a particular lack of effective communication with our citizenry is in handling the subject of compromise. The notion has grown up among too many Americans that no one in high public position can be trusted. "They all lie," too many citizens think. "They constantly compromise and sell out their principles." Why is this so?

During my 25 years in public life, the vast majority of persons with whom I worked were decent and honorable men and women of integrity and commitment, often serving at great personal sacrifice. How do we come, as a nation, to so disrespect such persons?
Here important distinctions must be made. Those in high office occasionally do lie and deserve public condemnation. Some do compromise their principles. And they also attract widespread media and public disapproval. But "politics," it has been observed, "is the art of the possible." And constructive compromise is of the essence of the craft of politics. While no one should abide or approve compromise in matters of principle, compromise in the pursuit of principle is part of the political process, often prompting those in public life to forego the lesser for the greater good.

We have seen a discouraging recent example of this in the controversy over the failure of the United States to pay over $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations, an organization we were most instrumental in establishing following World War II to help deter armed hostilities and promote economic, social, and political development. Appropriations to pay these dues have been withheld as a result of a battle between the White House and the Congress over the extent to which American taxpayers should fund UN efforts to promote the availability of abortions abroad. This is a matter deserving of thoughtful debate, to be sure, but because the Administration and the Congress have each dug in their heels over the lesser issue, the greater issue of meeting our treaty obligations to fund the United Nations remains unresolved. And our status as a seemingly petulant deadbeat may well threaten our effectiveness within the organization.

Surely, without compromising the important principles involved on competing sides, some compromise approach can be devised to preserve our status as a responsible member of the world community while separately treating other equally challenging issues.

V
A fifth and final theme that I suggest for your consideration is a reaffirmation of the importance of governmental structure in public administration. Whether or not "the era of big government is over," as the President suggests, there can be no doubt that we are in the midst of a "devolution revolution" in which more and more decisionmaking will take place at the state and local level.

The mechanisms which we devise for the delivery of services within particular communities will have an enormous effect on our ability to deliver those services effectively and efficiently. Author David Halberstam has noted that "one of the ironic outcomes of the Reagan Revolution, with its greatly diminished federal aid to the states, is that it forced state governments, however reluctantly, to become better and more accountable." The same result, I predict, will be replicated in dealing with today's changes.

In this connection, much more attention will need to be given to workable regional governance as advances in communications, transportation, and technology reduce time and space differentials within our borders. The Academy's spring meeting, of course, encompassed an in-depth focus on this phenomenon as a follow-up to the Academy's report, Building Stronger Communities and Regions. The earlier study which we did on the federal role in economic development took specific note of the need for "linking" various communities in logical groupings for the accomplishment of goals in this area. The need for this kind of effort in other undertakings will become more pervasive with the increased responsibility at the subfederal level inherent in this era's reshuffling exercise.

Reform of this sort is, of course, not a sport for the short-winded. I well remember my tenure as planning chief for the criminal justice process in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania during the early 1970s as a part of the mechanism for distributing funds under the then-Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. My home county is something of a poster-child for fragmented and disorganized local government. In the criminal justice area, it was (and, regrettably still is) afflicted with 115 separate police forces, one of which was so small that a single revolver was passed from hand to hand at shift changes from one cop on the beat to another. Recommendations made over 25 years ago to rationalize this arrangement and to group policing functions in logical, combined forces have fallen, over the years, on deaf ears, largely, I suspect, because the elimination of any one police force would mean that a chief of police will be left without a job!

Nonetheless, as many of you know, Allegheny County this year, for the first time in history, adopted a home rule charter which represents a potentially important step in the right direction which those of us interested in reform hope may lead to better days ahead. Re-examination of the structure of service delivery areas is surely long overdue in many communities and can only be accelerated by the new responsibilities being devolved upon their leaders.

We will also be well-advised to look at expanding our reliance on public-private partnerships. These have been remarkably successful, for example, in economic development where joint undertakings involving government, industry and research universities have played a central role in facilitating the transfer of modern technology into the marketplace. Every one of the 50 states now has in place counterparts to the Ben Franklin Partnership which was so instrumental in guiding Pennsylvania's economy from its former smokestack base into the more future-oriented posture which today preserves the state as a viable economic entity.

Moreover, greater emphasis is being placed on partnerships between federal, state, and local agencies with common responsibilities. Again, in the economic development area, the U.S. Innovation Partnership offers real promise, for the first time, of an integrated effort to use our science and technology assets in a coordinated way to help foster new economic growth and jobs throughout the nation.
With more and more responsibility attaching to institutions, public and private, which are closer to the people, one byproduct we can hope to realize is a concomitant increase in effective response to all the other concerns I have addressed today the need for leadership, accountability, greater participation, and heightened civility as people find the governing process more within their grasp. More visible, transparent, and accessible processes of government cannot help but offer a greater incentive for all citizens to become more engaged in the day-to-day administration of their affairs.

* * *
Let me close with a brief reference to one other overriding theme in our approach to the new century. I speak of the necessity for the United States to strengthen our role as exemplar of the rule of law, democratic principles, human rights, and market economics throughout the world. We must continue to engage in a conscious outreach effort to offer other countries the full opportunity to prosper through the application of these principles to their own political systems, societies, and economies.

Many, to be sure, suggest that our role should be confined to efforts within our own country. They argue that we should address our own problems to the exclusion of those confronting the rest of the world. Indeed, there is much wisdom in the observation of George Kennan, one of our most distinguished diplomats, who, in a recent memoir, noted:
"The greatest service this country could render to the rest of this world would be to put its own house in order and to make of American civilization an example of decency, humanity and societal success from which others could derive whatever they might find useful to their own purposes."

But surely, more will be required, indeed demanded, of this nation in the next century. Advances in transportation, communication and technology have forced upon us the realization that any neoisolationist viewpoint cannot prevail in the face of today's realities. The quandary we face with regard to the predicted Y2K computer crisis is but one example of how "tending to our own knitting" will not suffice in today's interconnected world.

We live today in what the French intellectual, Andre Malraux, long ago envisioned as "the first planetary civilization" where our every endeavor reverberates planetwide, for better or worse. This makes it all the more important that we assert a strong leadership role in seeing that others have the same opportunity to improve their quality of life as we have had in the United States.

To its credit, the Academy has already initiated a number of international programs dealing with the challenges of public administration in other nations. I well remember the rewards of my own opportunity to visit four sub-Saharan African countries while I served as Pennsylvania's governor. My series of lectures on "nuts and bolts" issues related to the day-to-day tasks of governance, not broad policy issues. Incidentally, my colleagues seemed to find the scale of my experiences at the state level -- millions rather than billions -- much more relevant than what they might have gleaned from my federal counterparts. I would urge this point in the configuration of the Academy's future international programs.

These themes that I have suggested for the next millennium remind us that issues in public administration are vitally interconnected with the whole process of policy choices and governance throughout the world. Organizations such as the Academy have a vital role to play in this process, but only if our important educational work is articulated in a convincing manner and launched into the public debate through champions of our causes who hold positions of prominence. Here, I suggest a more vigorous public effort needs to be made if we are to maximize the impact of the Academy's fine work and to fulfill our charter's expectation that we increase "public officials', citizens', and scholars' understanding of [the] requirements and opportunities for sound governance and how these can be effectively met."

Indeed, the report, hot off the press, of the Academy's Visiting Committee underscores the desirability of attracting more press and public interest, enlarging public understanding, and raising the visibility of our efforts to deal with pressing national issues.
Through such endeavors we can help to make a vital difference in how effective and efficient we become in meeting public responsibilities in these vital times. And, indeed, at no time in our history has the challenge of "doing the right thing" and "doing the thing right" been greater for all of us engaged in public administration.

When my wife was a girl scout, one of her favorite leaders told her that her troop's goal should always be to leave their campsite in better shape than they found it. I thought as I prepared these remarks: Isn't that what all of us interested in public administration aspire to? We aim to leave our cities, counties, states and nation, indeed our world, better than we found them. I hope these observations can add to our ability to do just that.

Thank you.

About the Lecturer
Dick Thornburgh served as governor of Pennsylvania, attorney general of the United States and under-secretary-general of the United Nations during a public career, which spanned over 25 years. He is currently counsel to the national law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, resident in its Washington, D.C. office.

Elected governor of Pennsylvania in 1978 and re-elected in 1982, Thornburgh balanced state budgets for eight consecutive years, reduced both personal and business tax rates, cut the state's record-high indebtedness and left a surplus of $350 million. Under his leadership, 15,000 unnecessary positions were eliminated from a swollen state bureaucracy and widely recognized economic development, education and welfare reform programs were implemented. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate, among the ten highest in the nation when he was elected, was among the ten lowest when he left office.

Thornburgh served three years as attorney general of the United States (1988-1991) under Presidents Reagan and Bush. He mounted a vigorous attack on white-collar crime as the Department of Justice obtained a record number of convictions of savings and loan and securities officials, defense contractors and corrupt public officials. Thornburgh established strong ties with law enforcement agencies around the world to help combat drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism and international white-collar crime. ever had. He is one of only seventeen persons to be named as honorary special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As attorney general, he played a leading role in the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thornburgh also took vigorous action against racial, religious and ethnic "hate crimes," and his office mounted a renewed effort to enforce the nation's anti-trust and environmental laws.

All told, Thornburgh served in the Justice Department under five Presidents, beginning as a United States attorney in Pittsburgh (1969-1975) and assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division (1975-1977), emphasizing efforts against major drug traffickers, organized crime and corrupt public officials.

During his service at the United Nations (1992-1993) as the highest-ranking American in the organization, Thornburgh was in charge of personnel, budget and finance matters. His report to the secretary-general on reform, restructuring and streamlining efforts designed to make the United Nations peacekeeping, humanitarian and development programs more efficient and cost-effective was widely praised.
A native of Pittsburgh, Thornburgh was educated at Yale University, where he obtained an engineering degree, and at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Thornburgh served as director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government (1987-1988) and was a visiting lecturer at the George Washington University Law School (1995).

Thornburgh, age 66, is married to Ginny Judson Thornburgh. They have four sons and six grandchildren. As parents of a son with mental retardation, they have taken a special interest in the needs of persons with disabilities.