America at 250: The Ideas and Writings That Built a Nation

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, the moment calls for more than celebration, it calls for reflection on the ideas that made independence possible. The Declaration of Independence stands as one of the most powerful political documents in history, yet it did not emerge from a single mind or moment. It was the product of centuries of legal tradition, philosophical inquiry, civic experimentation, and revolutionary rhetoric.


When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration in 1776, he did not aim to create a new philosophy. Instead, he sought to express what he later described as “the common sense of the subject.” This phrase captures the essence of the American founding: a synthesis of ideas already circulating through books, pamphlets, speeches, and lived experience. The Declaration distilled these influences into a clear and enduring statement of political purpose.


British Foundations and the Rule of Law
The intellectual roots of American independence begin not with revolution, but with tradition. The American colonies inherited a rich legacy of English constitutionalism, grounded in the principle that government must operate within the rule of law.

Documents such as the Magna Carta established the idea that even the monarch is subject to legal constraints. Though originally a feudal agreement, its broader significance lay in limiting arbitrary power. This principle evolved over centuries, culminating in the English Bill of Rights, which affirmed parliamentary authority and protected individual liberties.

For the colonists, these documents were not abstract ideals, they were guarantees of their rights as English subjects. When those rights appeared to be violated, resistance was framed not as rebellion, but as restoration. The Declaration’s grievances reflect this perspective, portraying King George III’s actions as departures from established constitutional norms.


Colonial Practice and the Mayflower Compact
While British tradition provided a legal framework, the American experience contributed a practical dimension to self-governance. One of the earliest examples of this is the Mayflower Compact. Drafted aboard the Mayflower, the Compact established a “civil body politic” based on mutual consent. It was a simple agreement, but its implications were profound: legitimate government arises from the agreement of the governed, not from imposed authority. This principle would become central to American political thought.


The Compact also demonstrated the colonies’ capacity for self-rule. Over time, colonial assemblies, town meetings, and local governance structures reinforced the idea that political authority could be exercised collectively. By the time of the Revolution, this experience had created a population accustomed to participation in governance.


The Enlightenment and the Language of Rights
The philosophical clarity of the American Revolution was shaped by Enlightenment thinkers. John Locke provided the moral foundation with his theory of natural rights. He argued that individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and that governments exist to protect these rights. When they fail, the people have the authority to replace them.

Montesquieu contributed an institutional perspective, warning that liberty cannot survive when power is concentrated. His advocacy for the separation of powers influenced how colonists interpreted British rule, viewing it as a dangerous accumulation of authority. Jean-Jacques Rousseau expanded the concept of sovereignty, emphasizing that legitimate authority rests with the people. While his direct influence on Jefferson is debated, his ideas were part of the broader intellectual climate that made independence conceivable.


The Voice of Revolution: Henry and Paine
If Enlightenment thinkers provided the framework, it was revolutionary voices that ignited action. Patrick Henry transformed abstract ideas into urgency. In his famous 1775 speech, he declared, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” This was not merely rhetoric, it was a moral line drawn in the sand. Henry’s words captured the growing belief that liberty was not negotiable, and that continued submission to tyranny was unacceptable. Henry’s speech also reframed the colonial debate. It shifted the question from whether grievances existed to whether action was required. In doing so, it helped move public sentiment toward independence.

Similarly, Thomas Paine played a critical role in mobilizing the public. His pamphlet Common Sense translated complex political theory into direct, accessible language. Paine argued that monarchy was inherently flawed and that independence was both necessary and inevitable. His words resonated widely, reaching audiences far beyond the educated elite. Paine wrote not for philosophers, but for the people. He made the case that self-governance was not only a right, but a practical necessity.Together, Henry and Paine demonstrate the power of rhetoric in shaping political change. They bridged the gap between theory and action, turning ideas into momentum.


Print Culture and Revolutionary Discourse
The spread of revolutionary ideas depended on a vibrant print culture. Newspapers, pamphlets, and letters served as the primary means of communication, allowing ideas to circulate rapidly across the colonies. Benjamin Franklin exemplifies this dynamic. His “Silence Dogood” letters championed free expression and civic engagement, helping to establish a culture of public discourse. Through print, ideas could be debated, refined, and disseminated widely. These writings played a crucial role in shaping public opinion. They connected abstract philosophical ideas to everyday concerns, making the case for independence both relatable and compelling. By the time the Declaration was drafted, the intellectual groundwork for independence had been firmly established through years of printed debate.


Classical Influences and Civic Virtue
The intellectual lineage of the American Revolution extends even further back, drawing on classical sources such as Cicero and Polybius. These thinkers emphasized the importance of civic virtue, the dangers of corruption, and the need for balanced governance. Their ideas influenced both Enlightenment philosophers and the American Founders. Jefferson’s reading lists included these classical authors, reflecting a synthesis of ancient and modern thought. The American experiment was not a rejection of the past, but an adaptation of enduring principles to a new context.

Beneath Enlightenment philosophy lies an even deeper intellectual foundation rooted in classical antiquity. The works of Cicero, Aristotle, and other ancient thinkers provided enduring lessons on governance, virtue, and political stability. As highlighted in First Principles by Thomas E. Ricks, the American Founders were not merely revolutionaries—they were students of history. They viewed ancient Greece and Rome as case studies in both success and failure, drawing lessons on how republics rise and fall.

For figures like George Washington, classical ideals of republican virtue were central. Washington’s decision to relinquish power echoed the Roman model of Cincinnatus, reinforcing the principle that leadership should serve the public good rather than personal ambition. John Adams, influenced by Cicero, emphasized the dangers of unchecked democracy and the need for strong institutions. James Madison applied classical insights to institutional design, recognizing the inevitability of factions and creating structures to manage them.

This classical perspective introduced several enduring principles:

  • History as a guide: Past republics provide lessons for modern governance
  • Civic virtue: A republic depends on ethical leadership and engaged citizens
  • Fear of faction: Competing interests must be balanced to prevent domination
  • Balance of liberty and order: Stability requires equilibrium between freedom and control

These ideas reinforced the Founders’ understanding that institutions alone are insufficient. A successful republic requires a culture of responsibility and participation.

The Declaration as a Synthesis

The genius of the Declaration lies in its ability to synthesize these diverse influences. It draws on British legal tradition, colonial experience, Enlightenment philosophy, classical thought, and revolutionary rhetoric. Its structure reflects this synthesis. The preamble articulates universal principles, while the grievances provide specific evidence of their violation. The document functions as a philosophical statement, a legal argument, and a call to action. In doing so, it transforms a collection of ideas into a declaration of independence, both political and intellectual.


Relevance for Public Service Today
For modern public administrators, these ideas remain deeply relevant. The principles of accountability, consent, and the rule of law continue to guide governance. Organizations like the American Society for Public Administration play a vital role in sustaining this legacy. They ensure that the ideals of the founding era are translated into effective and ethical governance. At the same time, contemporary challenges require these principles to be continually reinterpreted. The balance between liberty and security, the role of government in addressing inequality, and the impact of technological change all demand thoughtful engagement with the ideas of the past.


Conclusion: A Tradition Carried Forward
As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, it is important to recognize that the nation’s founding was not a static event but an ongoing process. The ideas that shaped the Declaration continue to evolve, influenced by new experiences, perspectives, and challenges.


The story of American independence is, at its core, a story of ideas debated in books, refined in letters, and ultimately expressed in a single document. It is a story that reminds us of the power of thought to shape reality, and of the responsibility that comes with that power.


The Declaration of Independence did not mark the end of this intellectual journey. It marked a beginning. The task of interpreting and applying its principles now rests with each generation. At 250 years, the question is not simply what these ideas meant in 1776, but what they mean today and what they will mean for the future of public service and democratic governance.

Categories: Uncategorized

AI From Predictive Models to Public Value: AI Theory in Action

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

As May ushers in a season of renewal, marked by Public Service Recognition Week and Memorial Day, it offers a moment to reflect not only on the enduring mission of public service, but also on the forces reshaping it. Among these, artificial intelligence (AI) stands out as more than a technological advancement; it represents a structural shift in how governments operate, make decisions, and deliver value. To understand AI’s implications, we must examine a deeper question: what is intelligence, how has it evolved, and what responsibilities does it now place on public institutions? 

Drawing from A Brief History of Intelligence, intelligence is best understood as an adaptive process rooted in survival. Bennett traces this evolution from simple organisms, such as bacteria responding to chemical gradients, to increasingly complex nervous systems capable of learning and prediction. One key example is reinforcement learning in animals, where behaviors are strengthened or weakened based on outcomes. This biological principle mirrors modern AI systems, particularly those used in predictive analytics and optimization. For instance, just as a rat learns to navigate a maze through reward signals, AI models learn to optimize outcomes through data feedback loops. 

For public administration, this insight is more than theoretical. Government systems operate under similar principles. Policies act as “stimuli,” and public responses serve as feedback. Consider regulatory enforcement within agencies like MSHA: inspections, citations, and compliance assistance function as feedback mechanisms that shape behavior in high-risk environments. If penalties are too weak, unsafe practices persist; if overly punitive, they may encourage concealment rather than compliance. Like biological systems, effective governance depends on calibrating feedback to produce desired outcomes. 

This behavioral dynamic aligns closely with the work of Daniel Kahneman, whose distinction between intuitive (“System 1”) and analytical (“System 2”) thinking highlights the limits of purely rational policymaking. For example, safety compliance in mining is not driven solely by written regulations but also by habits, heuristics, and cultural norms underground. AI systems, particularly those using machine learning, now replicate these patterns by identifying correlations in behavior and predicting outcomes—often faster and at greater scale than human analysts. 

Bennett’s concept of layered intelligence further enhances this understanding. He describes the brain as a hierarchical system in which older, reactive structures coexist with newer, deliberative ones. This layering is evident in government as well. At the

operational level, agencies respond to immediate demands—emergency response, inspections, and frontline service delivery. At the institutional level, they enforce rules and ensure accountability through regulatory frameworks. At the strategic level, they analyze data, develop policy, and plan for the future. 

A clear example of this layered governance can be seen in public health responses during crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments combined real-time operational decisions (e.g., hospital capacity management), institutional rules (e.g., mask mandates), and strategic modeling (e.g., infection projections). AI enhanced this process by providing predictive analytics, helping leaders anticipate case surges and allocate resources more effectively. The lesson is clear: AI does not replace governance layers, it strengthens their integration. 

However, the promise of AI is not evenly distributed. As emphasized by Brenna Isman of the National Academy of Public Administration, the most significant impacts of AI will occur not in national capitals, but on “Main Street.” For example, municipalities are already using AI to improve service delivery—chatbots handling citizen inquiries, predictive maintenance systems identifying infrastructure failures, and automated permitting processes reducing administrative delays. In Kansas City, AI has been used to streamline loan processing, expanding access to capital for small businesses. Meanwhile, in California, AI-driven automation has improved recycling operations, increasing efficiency while reducing costs. 

Yet these benefits require foundational investments. Communities lacking broadband access or technical expertise cannot effectively adopt AI. This challenge is particularly relevant in rural and post-industrial regions such as Appalachia. Here, the insights from Jump-Starting America become critical. Gruber and Johnson argue that innovation in the United States has become concentrated in a few metropolitan hubs, leaving many regions behind. They propose establishing new “growth centers” anchored by research institutions, federal investment, and private-sector partnerships. 

Applied to AI, this suggests that federal and state governments should actively invest in regional AI ecosystems; supporting universities, workforce training programs, and local innovation hubs. For example, a partnership between a land-grant university and local government could create AI training pipelines for public sector employees, enabling smaller communities to leverage technology without relying entirely on external vendors. This approach not only promotes equity but also strengthens national competitiveness. 

At the same time, AI cannot be separated from the physical infrastructure that enables it. As detailed in Chip War, semiconductors are the backbone of modern computing. The global competition for chip production, particularly between the United States and

China, illustrates how technological capability is tied to geopolitical power. For instance, Taiwan’s dominance in advanced chip manufacturing has made it a focal point of international strategy. Disruptions in this supply chain could significantly impact AI deployment across sectors, including government. 

For public administrators, this underscores the importance of aligning AI strategy with industrial policy. Investments such as the CHIPS and Science Act represent efforts to rebuild domestic semiconductor capacity, ensuring that critical technologies remain accessible and secure. Without such investments, even the most advanced AI strategies could be constrained by external dependencies. 

While Chip War highlights structural dependencies, Recoding America exposes internal barriers within government itself. Pahlka provides numerous examples of how overly complex systems hinder effective service delivery. One notable case is the rollout of Healthcare.gov, where technical failures were exacerbated by fragmented authority and rigid procurement processes. The issue was not a lack of technical expertise, but a system that prevented effective coordination and problem-solving. 

This lesson is directly applicable to AI adoption. Without institutional reform, AI risks becoming another layer of complexity rather than a solution. For example, if an agency deploys an AI tool for case processing but retains outdated approval workflows, the overall system may remain inefficient. Successful implementation requires rethinking processes, empowering frontline workers, and aligning policy design with operational realities. 

These challenges are not new. As explored in Accessory to War, technological advancement has long been intertwined with national priorities. Tyson and Lang demonstrate how innovations, from celestial navigation to satellite systems, were often driven by military and strategic needs. For example, the development of accurate star charts enabled naval dominance, while Cold War investments in space technology led to advancements that now underpin modern GPS systems. 

The implication for AI is clear: technological progress is rarely neutral. It reflects the priorities and values of the societies that invest in it. Today, AI development is shaped by both economic competition and national security concerns. Public administrators must therefore ensure that AI is guided not only by efficiency, but by democratic values. 

This perspective aligns with the concept of The Technological Republic, which calls for aligning technological innovation with public purpose through coordinated national effort. In this framework, AI becomes a national project—similar to the interstate highway system or the Apollo program. Such projects require long-term investment, cross-sector collaboration, and a clear commitment to public outcomes.

Importantly, this national project must incorporate place-based strategies, as emphasized in Jump-Starting America. It must also address infrastructure dependencies highlighted in Chip War and institutional barriers identified in Recoding America. Without integrating these elements, AI adoption risks being fragmented, inequitable, and ineffective. 

Ethical considerations further reinforce the need for a coordinated approach. Public trust is the foundation of governance, and AI must strengthen that trust. This includes addressing algorithmic bias—for example, ensuring that predictive policing models do not disproportionately target certain communities—and promoting transparency so that decisions can be understood and challenged. Accountability mechanisms must also be established to ensure that AI systems operate within legal and ethical boundaries. 

As explored in The Singularity Is Near and The Singularity Is Nearer, by Ray Kurzweil, the pace of technological change is accelerating. While these works often focus on long-term possibilities, their relevance to public administration is immediate. Governments must operate in an environment where innovation outpaces regulation, requiring adaptive governance frameworks capable of responding to rapid change. 

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, the integration of AI into governance represents a defining moment. The nation’s founding principles (democracy, accountability, and service) must guide how these technologies are adopted. The question is not whether AI will transform the government, but whether that transformation will advance the public good. 

In conclusion, the evolution of intelligence—from simple biological systems to advanced artificial models—provides a powerful framework for understanding AI’s role in governance. Intelligence is not about perfection, but about the capacity to learn and adapt. Public administration must embrace this mindset, leveraging AI to enhance decision-making, strengthen feedback systems, and improve outcomes. 

At the same time, it must recognize that technology is embedded within broader systems from economic, institutional, and geopolitical. By integrating insights from A Brief History of Intelligence, Jump-Starting America, Chip War, Recoding America, and Accessory to War, public leaders can approach AI not as an isolated tool, but as part of a larger national project. 

By treating AI as a shared public endeavor—grounded in equity, accountability, and strategic coordination—the United States can ensure that this transformative technology serves as a cornerstone of a modern technological republic, advancing opportunity, resilience, and public value for generations to come.

Categories: Policy, Public Administration Toolbox

Bringing AI to Main Street: What It Means for Communities and Public Service

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape industries and institutions, its most profound impacts may not be felt in Silicon Valley or Washington, D.C., but on “Main Street”—in the cities, towns, and communities where public services are delivered and local economies thrive. A recent discussion led by Brenna Isman of the National Academy of Public Administration (click here to view the recording) offers a timely and grounded look at how AI is transforming public administration at the local level—and what it will take for communities to succeed. 

AI’s Promise—and Its Limits 

At the national level, projections suggest AI could significantly boost productivity and economic growth over the next decade. But as Isman emphasized, those gains are not guaranteed at the local level. Communities must take deliberate steps to ensure AI-driven benefits are equitably distributed and aligned with local needs. 

Rather than eliminating jobs outright, AI is more likely to reshape the nature of work—automating routine tasks while enabling workers to focus on higher-value responsibilities. However, this transition brings real risks, particularly for workers in roles susceptible to automation. The takeaway is clear: adaptation,not avoidance,is the path forward. 

Understanding the AI Ecosystem 

The report introduces a helpful framework for understanding how AI operates within communities. It identifies three key groups: 

  • Innovators, who develop AI technologies 
  • Implementers, who apply those technologies in real-world settings
  • Enablers, who provide the infrastructure, policy support, and resources needed to sustain AI systems 

No single group can drive success alone. Effective AI adoption depends on coordination across sectors, including government, private industry, academia, and civil society. 

What Makes a Community “AI-Ready”? 

  1. Strong Digital Infrastructure Reliable broadband, cloud computing capacity, and modern power grids are foundational. Without these, AI adoption simply cannot scale. From digital literacy to advanced technical training, communities must invest in reskilling and upskilling their workforce. Partnerships with universities, community colleges, and even public libraries are proving critical. 
  2. Workforce Development
  3. Open Data and Governance High-quality data is the fuel of AI. But as participants noted, “garbage in, garbage out” remains a real concern. Effective data governance, transparency, and privacy protections are essential to building trust and ensuring ethical use. 
  4. Community Engagement Perhaps most importantly, successful communities treat AI not as something done to them, but something developed with them. Town halls, surveys, and public forums help ensure that residents understand—and help shape—the role of AI in their lives. 

Opportunities and Tradeoffs 

Communities that are successfully integrating AI tend to share several core characteristics: AI is already improving service delivery in areas such as customer service, lending decisions, and municipal operations. Case examples highlighted uses ranging from AI-powered loan processing in Kansas City to automation in manufacturing and recycling in California.

But these benefits come with tradeoffs. One of the most debated issues is the rise of data centers, which are essential to AI infrastructure but raise concerns about energy consumption, water usage, and environmental impact. Some states are even considering moratoriums on new data center development as they weigh economic benefits against community costs. 

The Workforce Question 

A particularly striking insight from the research is that AI often delivers the greatest productivity gains for less experienced workers, helping close performance gaps. This underscores the importance of accessible training programs and inclusive workforce strategies. Encouragingly, communities of all sizes are finding creative ways to build capacity. Smaller towns, often in partnership with nearby universities, are offering training programs and leveraging free tools such as online learning platforms. The common thread is not size or wealth—but commitment and creativity.

Governance, Ethics, and Trust 

As AI adoption accelerates, questions of governance loom large. Who ensures systems are fair? Who audits algorithms? How do we prevent bias and protect privacy? 

Emerging policies—such as requirements for chatbots to disclose that they are AI—signal a growing recognition of these challenges. Still, many public organizations are only beginning to grapple with the need for robust governance frameworks, ethical guardrails, and accountability mechanisms. For public administrators, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity: to shape AI in a way that reflects the values of equity, transparency, and public service. 

A Call to Action 

The overarching message from the discussion is one of urgency balanced with responsibility: 

  • Start now—waiting increases the risk of falling behind 
  • Invest in foundations—infrastructure, workforce, and governance
  • Center equity—ensure all communities benefit, not just the most resourced
  • Collaborate widely—no single entity can do this alone 

For communities like those in Appalachia and across West Virginia, the stakes are especially high. AI presents an opportunity to overcome long-standing barriers in education, healthcare, and economic development—but only if implemented thoughtfully and inclusively. 

Looking Ahead 

AI is not a distant future—it is already reshaping how governments operate and how communities function. The question is not whether to engage with AI, but how to do so responsibly. As public servants, the task ahead is clear: to ensure that this powerful technology strengthens, not undermines, the trust, effectiveness, and humanity at the heart of public service.

Categories: NCAC, Public Administration Toolbox

Recap of Federal Employees to Be Honored at Community Coffee Event in Beckley

On April 18, 2026, Young Government Leaders (YGL) hosted a Federal Employee Appreciation Coffee Event at Chocolate Moose in Beckley, West Virginia. As part of YGL’s broader national initiative to recognize and uplift public servants, the event offered a space for connection, conversation, and community among federal employees in the region.


The event was organized and hosted by Ryan Heimer, a member of the American Society for Public Administration National Capital Area Chapter (NCAC), where he serves as Communications Officer. Demonstrating a strong commitment to public service and community engagement, Ryan led local coordination efforts, brought together key partners, and helped ensure that attendees had access not only to a welcoming environment, but also to meaningful resources.


Among those partners was Fayette Federal Credit Union, which supports federal employees across the region. Their involvement highlighted the importance of local institutions in sustaining and supporting the federal workforce, particularly in communities like Beckley. By connecting attendees with practical financial resources and services, the event extended beyond appreciation to tangible support.


While attendance was modest, the event underscored an important truth: meaningful engagement does not require a large crowd. The smaller setting created an environment where attendees could connect more personally by sharing stories from their careers, reflecting on the challenges facing today’s federal workforce, and reaffirming a shared commitment to public service.


A highlight of the event was the participation of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Women’s and Fair Practices Department. Their presence brought added depth to the gathering by providing valuable resources and information focused on workplace equity, employee rights, and support systems available to federal workers. Their engagement complemented YGL’s mission by ensuring attendees left not only feeling appreciated, but also better informed and supported.


Throughout the morning, conversations touched on professional development, navigating change within federal service, and the importance of building strong networks—particularly in smaller communities like Beckley. Events like this reinforce that public service is not just about the work itself, but about the people who carry it forward every day.


The Beckley coffee event reflects YGL’s and AFGE’s continued commitment to reaching federal employees where they are, from across agencies, regions, and roles. Through leadership, partnership, and intentional outreach, even small gatherings can create lasting impact. YGL is helping to strengthen the fabric of public service—one conversation, one connection, and one community at a time.

Categories: Event, Latest News, NCAC

America 250: Jefferson v. Hamilton Ideals on Governance

Submitted by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

Jefferson’s ideal was rooted in liberty, restraint, and distrust of concentrated power. He believed republican government worked best when authority remained close to the people, when the national government was limited, and when public life was anchored in civic virtue rather than bureaucracy or financial centralization. Jefferson feared that too much federal power would reproduce the corruption and hierarchy Americans had just rejected. His vision leaned toward a stricter reading of constitutional power and a belief that self-government flourished best in decentralized institutions. 

Hamilton’s ideal, by contrast, centered on energy, capacity, and national cohesion. He believed the young republic would fail without a strong central government able to stabilize finances, maintain public credit, coordinate national policy, and command public confidence. Hamilton did not see government strength as the enemy of liberty; he saw it as the condition for survival and prosperity in a fragile new nation. His political outlook favored broader constitutional interpretation and durable national institutions capable of turning revolutionary aspiration into effective governance. 

This was never merely a personal rivalry. It was a foundational disagreement over the purpose of government itself. Jefferson asked how liberty could be preserved against overreach. Hamilton asked how the republic could endure without administrative strength. Jefferson worried about power becoming distant from the people. Hamilton worried about the government becoming too weak to govern at all. Both concerns remain familiar to anyone working in public administration today. 

Jefferson v. Hamilton 

That is why the Semiquincentennial is such a useful civic moment. It encourages reflection not only on what the founders said, but on what public servants must do. Modern administrators work in institutions that carry both Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian inheritance. When they defend transparency, local responsiveness, civic trust, and constitutional restraint, they echo Jefferson. When they build competent agencies, manage public resources, coordinate across jurisdictions, and respond to national crises with professionalism and scale, they echo Hamilton. The daily work of public administration often lies in balancing both traditions rather than choosing one absolutely. 

Thomas Paine adds another important dimension to this conversation. His writings pressed the revolutionary generation to see government as a public instrument tied to the welfare of ordinary people, not merely the privilege of elites. Paine’s moral urgency helps connect the Jefferson-Hamilton debate to the ethical core of public service: government must be judged not only by its structure, but by whether it serves the common good. In that sense, the question is not simply whether one prefers limited government or strong government, but whether public institutions are acting with legitimacy, competence, and fidelity to the public they exist to serve. 

For today’s public administrators, that may be the most valuable lesson of all. The founding era did not leave behind one settled blueprint. It left behind a constitutional democracy shaped by argument; between liberty and capacity, localism and nationhood, restraint and action. The enduring strength of the American government has often come from wrestling with those tensions rather than pretending they do not exist. As the nation nears its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026, public servants have an opportunity to frame their work within this longer civic tradition. The American experiment has always depended on people willing to translate ideals into institutions and principles into practice. Jefferson reminds us that the government must remain accountable to liberty. Hamilton reminds us that liberty without effective governance can become fragile and unprotected. Between them lies the continuing challenge of democratic administration: building a government strong enough to serve, but restrained enough to remain the people’s own. 

Reflecting on the works of Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America adds another layer by emphasizing that democratic resilience depends not only on constitutions and institutions, but on civic character. American democracy has survived not because it avoided conflict, but because enough citizens and leaders chose responsibility over cynicism at key moments. That idea is especially meaningful for public administrators. Administrative work often appears procedural, technical, and routine. Yet much of democratic life is preserved through ordinary acts of competence, honesty, and fairness. The Soul of American does just state government is not found only in founding documents or great speeches. It is also found in the daily, disciplined work of public servants who keep institutions trustworthy. 

Categories: Leadership, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: ,

Governing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Submitted by Board Member, Ryan Heimer

Technology Policy, Democratic Institutions, and the Future of Public Administration 

The relationship between government and technology has entered a new phase. In earlier eras, public administration often treated technology as a supporting function that has been important for efficiency, recordkeeping, and communication, but secondary to the central tasks of policy design, budgeting, and implementation. That distinction is becoming increasingly untenable. Artificial intelligence, semiconductor supply chains, digital platforms, cloud infrastructure, and data governance now shape not only how governments operate, but also how they exercise authority, maintain legitimacy, and deliver public value. 

Recent works on technology and governance including Chris Miller’s Chip War, Jennifer Pahlka’s Recoding America, and Alexander C. Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska’s The Technological Republic. They offer a particularly useful framework for understanding this transformation. Although these works approach the subject from different vantage points (geopolitical competition, bureaucratic reform, and national strategy) they converge on a shared conclusion: the ability of governments to understand and manage technology is increasingly inseparable from the broader question of effective governance. 

My hope is the outline within these texts, when read alongside contemporary AI policy efforts such as the Build American AI initiative, the White House National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, and research on municipal AI readiness, point toward a major shift in the field of public administration. Technology policy is no longer a specialized issue confined to technical agencies or information technology offices. Rather, it is becoming central to democratic governance itself. Public administrators must therefore develop not only traditional competencies in management and policy analysis, but also the institutional, strategic, and ethical capacity to govern in an increasingly technological society. 

Technology as a Question of State Capacity 

Chris Miller’s Chip War provides the broadest strategic context for understanding why technology has become so important to governance. Miller’s central contribution is to show that semiconductors are not simply commercial products; they are a form of strategic infrastructure underpinning economic power, military capability, and technological leadership. Modern economies depend on chips to power everything from smartphones and automobiles to artificial intelligence systems and advanced defense platforms. As a result, semiconductor production and supply chains have become a core arena of geopolitical competition. 

For public administration, the significance of this argument lies in its implications for state capacity. Governments have historically treated infrastructure such as roads, ports, water systems, and electric grids. Now foundational to national development and public welfare. Chip War suggests that advanced technological production now occupies a similarly foundational role. The ability to access and sustain semiconductor capacity is increasingly tied to economic resilience, innovation potential, and national security. 

This insight is especially important because it broadens how public administrators must think about technology. The issue is no longer simply whether agencies possess updated software or modern information systems. Rather, it is whether the state as a whole possesses the institutional and strategic capacity to operate in an environment where technological dependencies shape policy outcomes. In this sense, Miller reframes technology not as a narrow policy area but as an essential component of modern statecraft. 

Institutional Failure and the Administrative Problem 

If Chip War explains why technology matters strategically, Jennifer Pahlka’s Recoding America explains why governments often fail to use it effectively. Pahlka’s analysis is less concerned with geopolitical rivalry than with the ordinary functioning of the administrative state. Her central claim is that many public-sector technology failures are not caused by a lack of ambition or public purpose, but by institutional arrangements that make effective digital implementation difficult. 

In Pahlka’s account, government technology projects frequently fail because they are constrained by outdated procurement systems, fragmented authority, rigid compliance structures, and an overreliance on large external contractors. These institutional features tend to reward procedural caution over practical usability, producing systems that are expensive, slow to deploy, and often poorly matched to the actual needs of citizens and frontline workers. The result is not merely inefficiency, but a deeper disconnect between public purpose and administrative execution. 

This argument is particularly important for public administration because it locates technological failure within the core structures of governance. The problem is not simply that governments need better tools; it is that they often lack organizational forms capable of building, managing, and adapting those tools effectively. Pahlka therefore shifts the debate from innovation in the abstract to institutional design in practice. 

Her proposed solution is equally significant. Rather than continuing to treat technology as a service to be outsourced, governments must cultivate internal technical expertise, embrace iterative design, and build closer working relationships between policy professionals and technologists. For public administrators, this implies that effective governance increasingly depends on the ability to connect administrative processes with digital realities. 

Democratic Governance and Technological Power 

Alexander Karp and Nicholas Zamiska’s The Technological Republic extends this discussion by placing technological development within the larger question of democratic power. Their argument is that democratic societies cannot remain effective, secure, or competitive if the government becomes detached from technological innovation. In an era defined by artificial 

intelligence, advanced computing, and strategic rivalry, the relationship between public institutions and technological development becomes a central political question. What distinguishes The Technological Republic from the other works is its emphasis on the broader constitutional and civic stakes of technological governance. Karp and Zamiska suggest that democratic states must do more than regulate innovation after the fact. They must actively shape the conditions under which innovation occurs, ensuring that technological advancement strengthens rather than undermines democratic institutions. 

This argument carries considerable weight for public administration. Public institutions are not merely neutral managers of social complexity; they are the mechanisms through which democratic societies organize collective action. If governments withdraw from technological development or fail to understand its implications, they risk ceding strategic power to private actors, foreign competitors, or institutional systems that operate beyond meaningful public accountability. 

In this respect, The Technological Republic revives an older tradition of thinking about the state, not as a passive regulator, but as a strategic partner in national development. Its relevance to public administration lies in the reminder that governance requires institutional ambition as well as managerial competence. 

Artificial Intelligence and the Expansion of Governance Responsibilities 

The arguments advanced in these three books are reinforced by the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence as a major policy domain. AI is no longer simply a matter of private-sector innovation or consumer technology. It now occupies a central place in debates over economic growth, infrastructure investment, national defense, labor markets, public service delivery, and democratic accountability. 

Initiatives such as Build American AI reflect this shift by emphasizing the need for coordinated investment in domestic AI research, semiconductor production, computing infrastructure, and workforce development. The underlying premise is that AI leadership will not emerge automatically from market forces alone. It requires intentional public investment and strategic coordination across institutions. 

For public administration, this development is significant because it expands the scope of governance responsibilities. Artificial intelligence touches multiple domains traditionally associated with public management: procurement, workforce training, infrastructure planning, intergovernmental coordination, and public accountability. It also introduces new governance questions concerning transparency, algorithmic bias, privacy, and oversight. In short, AI governance is not reducible to technical regulation. It is a multidimensional administrative challenge that cuts across the core functions of modern government. 

The White House Framework and National Administrative Capacity 

The White House National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence further illustrates the extent to which AI is becoming embedded within the machinery of governance. The framework presents artificial intelligence as both a strategic technology and a foundational driver of future economic growth, public service modernization, and national security. It accordingly emphasizes four major priorities: strengthening American AI leadership, building infrastructure and capacity, modernizing government use and procurement, and ensuring responsible and trustworthy AI. 

The first priority, strengthening American AI leadership, underscores the need for sustained federal investment in research, advanced computing, semiconductor production, and strategic collaboration among government, universities, and private industry. This priority reflects the growing recognition that technological leadership is not self-sustaining; it depends on deliberate policy choices and long-term institutional commitment. 

The second priority, building infrastructure and capacity, highlights the material foundations of AI systems. Artificial intelligence depends on data centers, broadband, cloud resources, energy systems, and talent pipelines. In this sense, AI policy is also infrastructure policy. The federal government’s emphasis on physical and digital capacity reinforces the broader lesson of Chip War: technological power rests on concrete systems of production, supply, and support. 

The third priority, modernizing government use and procurement, is particularly relevant to the field of public administration. The framework recognizes that agencies must improve their ability to acquire, govern, and deploy AI tools effectively. Streamlined procurement, clearer guidance, stronger internal expertise, and more agile institutional systems are necessary if AI is to become a useful tool of governance rather than another source of bureaucratic failure. This emphasis closely aligns with Pahlka’s critique in Recoding America: governments cannot modernize merely by declaring technology a priority; they must also reform the institutional processes through which technology is adopted and managed. 

The fourth priority, ensuring responsible and trustworthy AI, points to the ethical and democratic dimensions of technological governance. Transparency, accountability, privacy, fairness, and human oversight are not peripheral concerns. They are central to whether citizens will trust the systems public institutions adopt. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in public decision-making, maintaining public legitimacy will require more than technical efficiency. It will require strong governance safeguards and a continuing commitment to democratic values. Taken together, these priorities show that AI policy is now inseparable from broader 

questions of national administrative capacity. Investments in infrastructure, reforms in procurement, and safeguards for trust and accountability all point toward the same conclusion: governments must modernize institutionally if they expect to govern effectively in an AI-driven environment. 

The Local Dimension: Community AI Readiness 

Although national strategy is essential, the consequences of technological transformation are often felt most directly at the local level. This is where research on community AI readiness becomes especially important. The National Academy of Public Administration’s report Bringing AI to Main Street argues that AI should not be viewed solely as a national competitiveness issue or as a private-sector innovation trend. Rather, its effects will be experienced in communities, where local governments, civic organizations, educational institutions, and regional economies must adapt to technological change. 

The Academy’s central concept is community AI readiness, which it defines as a community’s capacity to adopt, adapt to, and benefit from AI technologies through investments in digital infrastructure, workforce training, education, data governance, and local policy. This concept is especially valuable for public administration because it reframes AI adoption as a question of institutional and civic preparedness, not merely technological availability. Communities do not benefit from artificial intelligence simply because the technology exists. They benefit when public institutions create the conditions that make adoption possible, useful, and equitable. 

This insight adds an important practical layer to the broader arguments advanced in Chip War, Recoding America, and The Technological Republic. If Chip War demonstrates why technological capacity matters strategically, and Recoding America explains why public institutions often struggle to modernize, then the NAPA report shows where much of this challenge will actually unfold: in cities, counties, and regions that must translate abstract technological change into concrete public outcomes. Local government thus becomes not a peripheral actor, but a central arena in which the future of AI governance will be tested. 

The report is also significant because it emphasizes that AI adoption must be approached through iterative design rather than static planning. AI is not a static technology, and therefore the infrastructure, policies, and communications supporting it cannot remain static either. This argument closely parallels Jennifer Pahlka’s critique in Recoding America. Both perspectives suggest that governments will struggle if they continue treating technology adoption as a one-time procurement exercise rather than an ongoing process of adaptation, learning, and redesign. 

Equally important is the Academy’s focus on community engagement and performance measurement. The report recommends public engagement, asset mapping, and regularly updated metrics as tools for identifying readiness gaps, informing decisions, and building trust. For public administration, this reinforces the idea that AI governance must be participatory as well as data-informed. Efficiency alone is not enough; legitimacy also depends on whether communities understand, trust, and help shape the systems being implemented. 

The NAPA report further highlights the extent to which Al governance depends on foundational infrastructure and workforce capacity. Its discussion of broadband, fiber networks, cloud computing, data centers, energy supply, and workforce reskilling makes clear that AI policy is inseparable from broader investments in public capacity. In this respect, the report supports the broader argument of this essay: technological governance is not simply about software or digital tools. It is about whether institutions possess the infrastructure, talent, and organizational systems necessary to convert innovation into public value. 

Finally, the Academy emphasizes that local AI adoption must be grounded in transparency, fairness, accountability, and human-centered decision-making. Its case examples and governance recommendations point to the importance of ethical frameworks, vendor oversight, evaluation processes, and public-facing accountability mechanisms. This is especially significant for public administrators because it makes clear that AI readiness is not merely a technical matter. It is also a matter of democratic legitimacy. Communities that pursue innovation without trust, oversight, or ethical safeguards may improve administrative efficiency while undermining the public values they are meant to serve. 

For these reasons, the concept of community AI readiness adds a vital local and administrative dimension to current debates over technology policy. It reminds scholars and practitioners alike that the future of AI governance will not be determined only in federal strategy documents, research labs, or corporate boardrooms. It will also be determined in the practical work of local institution-building: expanding infrastructure, preparing workers, engaging residents, strengthening data governance, and ensuring that technological change serves the broader public good. 

Implications for the Field of Public Administration 

Taken together, these works suggest that public administration is undergoing a significant transformation. Traditional competencies such as budgeting, personnel management, policy analysis, and program evaluation remain indispensable. However, they are no longer sufficient on their own. The governance challenges associated with semiconductors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence, and public-sector modernization require a broader and more technologically informed conception of administrative competence. 

This does not mean that every public administrator must become a technologist. It does mean, however, that future administrators will need to develop a working understanding of digital systems, procurement strategy, infrastructure dependencies, data governance, and the ethical implications of technological deployment. They must be capable of translating between policy goals and technical realities, between public values and institutional design, and between democratic accountability and administrative innovation. 

The NAPA framework reinforces this point by showing that public administrators must increasingly think in terms of readiness, not simply adoption. Readiness includes not only whether institutions can purchase or deploy a system, but whether they have the infrastructure, workforce skills, governance standards, and public legitimacy needed to make that system effective. In this sense, the public administrator of the future is not just a manager of programs, but a builder of institutional capacity in an environment shaped by rapid technological change. Equally important, these works point to the continued value of cross-sector collaboration. 

Many of the most consequential technological advances in American history emerged through partnerships among government, academia, and private industry. That pattern remains relevant today. Effective technological governance will depend not only on what governments do internally, but also on how they structure relationships with researchers, firms, civic organizations, and local communities. In this sense, the public administrator of the future increasingly resembles a strategic integrator. Someone who can navigate institutions, technologies, and democratic values simultaneously. 

Conclusion 

Artificial intelligence and related technologies are reshaping the context in which public institutions operate. They are altering the material foundations of economic growth, the structures of strategic competition, the design of administrative systems, and the expectations citizens place on government. The central lesson of Chip War, Recoding America, The Technological Republic, contemporary AI policy initiatives, and NAPA’s work on community AI readiness is that technology is no longer an auxiliary issue in governance. It is becoming one of the principal means through which governance itself is exercised. 

For the field of public administration, this represents a structural shift. The central challenge is no longer simply whether the government can adopt new tools, but whether public institutions can develop the capacity, flexibility, and ethical discipline necessary to govern technological change in ways consistent with democratic values. Ultimately, governing in the age of artificial intelligence is not just about machines, data, or software. It is about institutional capability. It is about whether democratic governments can adapt quickly enough, intelligently enough, and responsibly enough to remain effective stewards of the public good in a technological age.

Categories: Current Events, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , ,

New and Returning Board Members Bring Deep Public Service Experience and Fresh Energy

The chapter’s board includes a strong mix of nonprofit leadership, long-term federal service, local government expertise, higher education, and organizational development. Creating a well-rounded team focused on stability, growth, and member value in the year ahead.

Whitney Meyerhoeffer works in the nonprofit sector and is especially focused on helping the chapter strengthen sustainable governance. Her priority is building durable practices that support continuity and long-term effectiveness.

Connie Berhane brings three decades of federal government experience. She is committed to supporting membership growth and closely monitoring participation trends over the upcoming year to ensure the chapter remains strong in key membership areas.

Judy England-Joseph has served as a federal employee since 1975, retiring from U.S. Government Accountability Office and continuing her work today by helping organizations improve employee engagement. She is interested in supporting chapter programming and contributing her experience to strengthen member-facing activities.

Dale Jones, serves as the immediate past president and brings a diverse background spanning the United States Air Force, higher education, and executive coaching. His focus is on ensuring smooth leadership transitions, supporting the new president and board, and helping sustain ongoing work already in progress.

Keesha Gill works in human services with Fairfax County Government. She plans to provide operational support to the board, particularly through organizing administrative processes and maintaining board files to keep the chapter’s work efficient and well-documented.

Joshua Lanier has more than 15 years of federal government experience and currently works with the United States Secret Service in a congressional committee context. He supports the board’s essay contest and brings a creative side as someone who enjoys photography and beach travel.

Dennis McBride, teaches at Georgetown University and has a background in behavioral neuroscience and experimental psychology. He is interested in helping the board with strategy and long-range thinking.

Hao Sun is a tenure-track assistant professor at Gallaudet University, where he teaches economics, business, finance, and public policy. His research focuses on public finance, international economic development, and comparative public policy, with work examining budgeting, fiscal institutions, and sustainable economic governance. As a newer member of the board, he is interested in strengthening connections between academic research and the public service community while expanding opportunities for student and early-career engagement.

Katherine McKinney recently began a new role with Washington State Government, where she is establishing a project management office. She is eager to support programming and membership efforts, with a special focus on ensuring members feel welcomed, valued, and connected.

Steven Putansu is a public servant at the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), a professorial lecturer at American University, an author, and a public management scholar. He tries to find connections between research and practice, and across academic fields and disciplines, to advocate for thoughtful development and use of policy knowledge in government decisions.

Ryan Heimer earned an MPA last year and works in the coalfields supporting the health and safety of coal miners. He is interested in contributing through chapter communications—especially by helping with the newsletter and assisting with written comments and advocacy-oriented writing when needed.

Allen Lomax has served on the NCAC Board since 2013, when he was appointed by ASPA National’s Board of Directors to help revitalize the chapter. His work with the City of Alexandria has helped inform chapter discussions on key issues such as affordable housing and the opioid crisis, while also bringing valuable intergovernmental perspectives to NCAC programming.

Together, this group blends experience and enthusiasm. Strengthening the chapter’s leadership capacity, supporting effective transitions, and expanding the board’s ability to deliver meaningful programs and a welcoming member experience.

Categories: Leadership, NCAC

AI at an Inflection Point: Implications for the Future of Public Administration

Submitted by Board Member, Ryan Heimer

Recent commentary from technology researchers and industry leaders suggests that artificial intelligence may be approaching a major turning point—one that could reshape work, productivity, and governance in the coming decade. Two recent articles highlight the scale and speed of these potential changes and offer an important starting point for reflection within the public administration community.

A research scenario published by Citrini Research describes a hypothetical future moment called the “Global Intelligence Crisis.” The concept imagines a world in which advanced AI systems dramatically expand the supply of intelligence—automating many cognitive tasks previously performed by highly trained professionals. In this scenario, productivity increases rapidly as AI performs research, analysis, coding, and other knowledge work at scale. While such developments could unlock enormous economic value, the transition could also bring disruption to labor markets, organizations, and financial systems as institutions struggle to adapt to a new technological reality.

At the same time, a recent commentary in Fortune argues that the world may already be approaching a similar inflection point. AI entrepreneur Matt Shumer compares the current moment in artificial intelligence to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as when warning signs were visible but not widely understood. According to this perspective, modern AI systems are already capable of performing tasks such as writing software, conducting research, and generating complex reports. As these capabilities improve, many entry-level and routine knowledge jobs may change significantly in the next several years. For public administration professionals, these developments raise profound questions about the future of government institutions and the nature of public service work. If intelligence becomes increasingly abundant through AI systems, the comparative advantage of public organizations may shift away from routine information processing and toward judgment, accountability, and ethical governance. In other words, the human role in public administration may increasingly focus on values, oversight, and decision-making rather than routine analysis.

Several areas of government could experience significant transformation. Administrative tasks such as document processing, regulatory review, data analysis, and program evaluation could be accelerated through AI tools, allowing agencies to process information and respond to public needs more quickly. For example, AI systems could assist with analyzing regulatory comments, identifying safety hazards in inspection data, forecasting infrastructure needs, or modeling policy outcomes. In fields such as public safety, environmental regulation, and occupational health, areas where data is already abundant, AI could help identify risks earlier and support more proactive governance.

At the same time, these capabilities introduce new responsibilities for public institutions. Governments will likely need to develop new regulatory frameworks to address questions of algorithmic transparency, data governance, and accountability. Ensuring that AI systems operate in ways that support equity, fairness, and due process will become a central concern for policymakers and administrators. Public agencies may also face pressure to address workforce transitions as automation affects certain roles while creating demand for new skills in technology oversight, data literacy, and strategic leadership. The public sector may also play a crucial role in managing the broader societal impacts of AI. Historically, major technological transitions, from the industrial revolution to the digital era, required governments to adapt labor policy, education systems, and social safety nets. If AI significantly alters the structure of knowledge work, similar policy discussions may emerge around workforce training, economic mobility, and public investment in emerging technologies.

For the field of public administration, these developments suggest that the competencies required of future public servants may evolve. In addition to traditional skills in policy analysis and program management, public leaders may increasingly need to understand technology governance, ethical AI implementation, and data-driven decision making. Educational programs in public administration may also begin to integrate coursework on artificial intelligence, digital governance, and technology policy to prepare the next generation of public leaders.

Ultimately, artificial intelligence presents both an opportunity and a responsibility for the public sector. While the technology may significantly enhance the capacity of government institutions, it also raises important questions about democratic accountability, institutional legitimacy, and the role of human judgment in governance. Public administrators will likely be at the center of navigating these questions. As the pace of AI development continues to accelerate, the field of public administration has an opportunity to shape how these tools are deployed in ways that strengthen democratic institutions, improve public service delivery, and ensure that technological progress serves the broader public interest. In many ways, the coming decade may test one of the core principles of public administration: that innovation must always be balanced with stewardship of the public trust.

Categories: Current Events Tags: Tags:

NCAC Officers and Members of the Board of Directors for 2026-2027

2 Comments

ASPA National Capital Area Chapter (NCAC) members elected four officers and eight at-large members for the Board of Directors. Voting took place during December 5-19. Board members will serve a two-year term beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2027.

Members of the next NCAC Board of Directors are listed below:
Officers of the Board (4)
President, Whitney Meyerhoeffer
Vice President, Joshua Lanier
Treasurer, Steven Putansu
Secretary, Keesha Gill

At-Large Members of the Board (8)
Connie Berhane
Ryan Heimer
Dr. Dale Jones (Immediate Past-President)
Judy England-Joseph
Allen Lomax
Dr. Dennis McBride
Katherine McKinney
Dr. Hao Sun

Dr. Dale Jones, outgoing President who will continue to serve on the Board in the role of Immediate Past-President, stated, “I thank current Board members for their dedicated and excellent service during the past two years and welcome new Board members for the next term. We are fortunate to have a Board with members who have extensive experience and
work together collaboratively to best serve our Chapter members.”

Additionally, he expressed, “I thank and extend my appreciation to the members of the Nominating Committee and Elections Committee for their excellent and timely conduct of the elections process.”  Nominating Committee members were Allen Lomax (Chair), Pablo Alcala, and John Palguta with support from Paula Acevedo and Whitney Meyerhoeffer.  Elections Committee members were Kitty Wooley (Chair), Paula Acevedo, Connie Berhane, Dale Jones, and Allen Lomax.

Categories: ASPA News, NCAC

Innovation Book Launch (hybrid event)

The event is postponed.  Refreshed invitation to be determined later in Fall 2025.

Join us for an inspiring evening at the beautiful Accenture Rosslyn building as we celebrate the launch of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector, the groundbreaking new book by Dr. Wendy D. Chen and Dr. David Audretsch.

This event will explore how forward-thinking governments around the world are leveraging technology, data, and collaboration to tackle complex public challenges. At a time when nearly all well-known entrepreneurs are from the private sector, this book also serves as a powerful reminder of the vital role of public entrepreneurship.

Dr. Chen will share key insights from the book, followed by a dynamic panel discussion with thought leaders in public sector innovation, an interactive audience Q&A, and an exciting book signing.

Whether you work in public service, policy, technology, academia or are simply passionate about better governance and the future of government, this is an event you won’t want to miss.

This event has in-person capacity for 36 and unlimited virtual capacity, register at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/book-launch-innovation-and-entrepreneurship-in-the-public-sector-tickets-1548189850519

Tags: Tags: ,