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: , ,

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:

Derrick Boakye Boadu Wins First Place in the 2025 Student Essay Contest

headshot of Derrick Boadu

Derrick Boadu

NCAC congratulates Derrick Boakye Boadu for winning First Place of the National Capital Area Chapter’s (NCAC) 2025 Public Administration Student Essay Contest for his essay “Public Administration in the Age of AI: A Dual Approach for Scholars and Practitioners.”

 

Derrick Boakye Boadu is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Florida International University, Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs and along with the distinction of the essay winning the Chapter’s Essay Contest, will receive a cash award of $2,000 that we hope will go toward furthering your education and a three-year membership to the American Society for Public Administration.

 

Derrick joined us at our Chapter’s Annual Meeting on May 13 to discuss his essay and express his gratitude for being selected.

 

You can view the recording of our Annual Meeting by clicking here.

 

Congratulations, Derrick, on winning First Place for your essay in our Chapter’s 2025 Student Essay Contest!

Categories: Annual Conference, Current Events, Essay Contest, Leadership, NCAC, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: ,

NCAC Congratulates Board Member Dr. Wendy Chen on Multiple Milestones

Headshot of Dr. Wendy Chen

Dr. Wendy Chen

The National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration would like to take a moment to celebrate the incredible accomplishments of our board treasurer, Dr. Wendy Chen. This year has been a banner year for Dr. Chen and our chapter is proud to celebrate and promote her work!

 

A New Chapter 

Dr. Chen has worked diligently and thoroughly and is excited that her book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector, published by Oxford University Press, will be released later this year. Look for an announcement from NCAC about a possible local book release event in late summer or early fall. Dr. Chen’s book first gives a history of public innovation from around the world. Then, she uses data and real-life examples to discuss lessons of public innovation.  More importantly, this book provides actionable strategies for the public sector to push innovation. She shows that public leaders are not only civil service workers- but are entrepreneurs in their own right that can create a culture of innovation to bring about change.

 

A Career Milestone

Another outstanding accomplishment, Dr. Chen recently became a tenured professor at Texas Tech University! She is an expert in various areas within public administration including technology and government innovation, public and nonprofit leadership, local governance, emergency management, and entrepreneurship, etc. She was recently honored with the prestigious Chester A. Newland award from Public Administration Review and is also the 2024 recipient of the Excellence in Science and Technology Research Award from the American Society of Public Administration.

 

Thought Leadership

Dr. Chen is a Senior Associate Editor of the Management Decision journal. It is a peer-reviewed and high-impact journal based in the UK and is the oldest academic journal that focuses on understanding management and leadership.

In her role, she is leading the new initiative “In Motion” to expand boundaries. Dr. Chen believes that lessons learned from practitioners and other sectors can be just as valuable as lessons from the private sector.

 

A Leader

Dr. Chen has worked diligently as the treasurer of our Board and is an active participant in our events, discussions, and promotions. NCAC is fortunate to have an innovative leader with fresh ideas and a holistic approach.

 

Final Thoughts & Congratulations

We congratulate Dr. Chen on her forthcoming book, being awarded tenure at Texas Tech University, and for her thought leadership in the Management Journal. Join us in congratulating Dr. Chen and look for news later this year about her book launch!

Categories: Current Events, Leadership, NCAC

Join NCAC at ASPA’s Annual Conference!

ASPA 2025Submitted by NCAC President, Dale Jones

ASPA’s 2025 Annual Conference will take place in person in Washington, DC, at The Mayflower Hotel during March 28 to April 1. The conference is the premier professional development event for those who practice, teach, or study public administration. The conference features 150 panels across six tracks examining this year’s theme: “Not Robots Yet: Keeping Public Servants in Public Service.”

For more information and to register to attend for in-depth conversations, research presentations, workshops, networking and so much more, please click here: https://aspanet.org/Conference2025/Conference2025/Home.aspx

Our National Capital Area Chapter is sponsoring two events at this year’s conference.

Reception & Relationships: First-Timers and Others!
Friday, March 28 | 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. | Chinese Ballroom

Sponsored by the Iowa Chapter, the National Capital Area Chapter, Kitty Wooley (NCAC Board Member), and ASPA.

This session is dedicated to all who wish to jump-start their conference participation over light hors d’oeuvres and facilitated conversation. By the time you leave the room, you”ll have met colleagues whose experience of public service is like and unlike your own. That will expand your circle and increase the possibilities for good times over the next few days and lasting professional connections after everyone goes home. First-timers and old hands, academics and practitioners, introverts and extroverts, local
residents and far-flung members—you'll encounter them all. Please join us for a heartfelt welcome to ASPA 2025.

 

Trust in Government Presidential Panel
Sunday, March 30 | 3:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. | Room TBD

Sponsored by the National Capital Area Chapter.

Presenters:
Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, Moderator and Presenter, Principal, Barrett and Greene, Inc.
Lura Forcum, President, Independent Center
Nick Mastronardi, Cofounder and CEO, Polco
Mark McDaniel, Deputy City Manager, Fort Worth Texas

If someone comes down with a bad case of the flu, they would be disinclined to tell friends that they were “healthy because they did not have pneumonia.” That is exactly how the critical issue of trust in state and local government is couched when compared to the situation in the federal government. Data demonstrates that though states and localities are more trusted than the federal government, levels of faith in these institutions have been on the wane in recent years. This session will dig deep into the best data available about this topic and explore the reasons why trust in government is such an important issue. It also will consider a variety of ways states and localities can bolster residents’ faith in government services, including heightened transparency; access to government officials and people who directly provide services; engendering citizen engagement; skillful use of social media; and more.

Volunteers for ASPA 2025 Annual Conference

Volunteers can receive a complimentary conference registration. To support the conference, ASPA would love it if some NCAC folks want to volunteer. This option is open to student and retiree ASPA members. If you would like to volunteer, please contact the ASPA conference staff at aspaconference@aspanet.org to receive more information. They would be happy to assist and would appreciate your support. Anyone who serves as a volunteer must work at least 16 hours of time in support of the conference to receive a free registration. Types of jobs needed include working at the registration desk, assisting with hallway monitoring and session set-up, providing general customer service, and helping with pre-conference set-up (bag stuffing, etc.).

Categories: Annual Conference, ASPA News, Current Events, Event, Latest News, NCAC

Extraordinary Public Servants

Submitted by ASPA-NCAC Board member Dale Jones

Millions of public servants at local, state, and federal levels serve citizens every day across our nation. They provide necessary services, assistance, and protection for the American people. The work can be routine and it can be extraordinary.

On March 26, 2024, the Francis Scott Key Bridge over the Patapsco River in Baltimore collapsed after being crashed into by the Singaporean-flagged cargo ship Dali loaded with 4,700 containers. It is a historical national economic catastrophe. Two construction workers died, and four more are missing and presumed dead.

During the Key Bridge disaster, public servants performed with extraordinary service. According to the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 2024, a dispatcher at the Association of Maryland Pilots, a trade group, immediately acted with a call to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) and stated, “There’s a ship heading toward the Key Bridge. He lost steering. We need to stop all traffic on the Key Bridge.” Within approximately two minutes, public servants ranging from officials in the state’s Key Bridge office to MTA officers acted with urgency and precision to stop traffic on the bridge prior to the collision, which resulted in no vehicles traveling on the bridge when it collapsed. Thus, no others died in this tragic incident.

This is extraordinary public service.

Categories: Current Events, Latest News Tags: Tags: ,

An Interview with Zina Merritt

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was recently ranked #1 among mid-sized agencies as part of the Partnership for Public Service’s list of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. And while rankings for leadership on diversity issues were not conducted this year, GAO has long held a top spot for its commitment to diversity as well. To learn more about how GAO integrates social equity into their organization and work, I spoke with Zina Merritt, the Special Assistant to the Comptroller General for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Prior to this role, Zina directed audits of national security and international programs and was a longtime advocate of equal employment opportunity to support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI&A) at all levels of the agency. In November 2017, GAO expanded its mission core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability to include people values—being valued, respected, and treated fairly. The underlying tenets of these people values factor into values Zina has long advocated for, and consequently the Comptroller General appointed Zina to serve in this role as GAO’s executive level DEI&A strategist.

Zina has a variety of responsibilities at GAO that include identifying and sharing best practices and programs to support DEIA and monitoring and measuring related performance outcomes of programs and initiatives. She also advises GAO’s Executive Committee, other senior leaders, managers, employee resource groups, and individual employees, while addressing concerns and responding to employee needs throughout the agency. When asked about her strategic
management role, she explained that GAO’s commitment to DEI&A is codified into the organization’s strategic plan and DE&I Strategic Implementation Plan. Specifically, GAO’s current agency strategic plan includes a performance goal that promotes identifying, attracting, and retaining a workforce with the skills necessary to achieve operational excellence. Another performance goal promotes enhancing and sustaining a culture that is fair, diverse, and inclusive and provides opportunities for all employees to excel. In 2019, GAO transformed its prior Workforce Diversity Plans into what is currently our DE&I Strategic Implementation Plan, and it is currently expanding upon this effort by adding accessibility as a focus area. The plan establishes GAO’s processes to review data and trends on demographic characteristics, comparisons to other federal workforces, and DEI&A related performance management goals and metrics. GAO executive level leaders also have explicit leadership and management expectations. For example, the annual performance expectations for GAO’s senior executives clearly communicates the role that they should have as senior leaders in supporting and implementing these efforts. Management and employees also have a critical role in this plan’s implementation through their constructive ongoing engagement in DEI&A efforts.

Zina noted that “Most importantly, effective DEI&A efforts require commitment from the organization’s head, who sets the tone at the top by supporting and engaging in DEI&A efforts at all levels. This includes regularly engaging with senior leadership, managers, affinity groups, and employees on DEI&A related issues to include some of the tough topics, such as acknowledging and communicating with employees regarding external events impacting employees and their families.” She praised the U.S. Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, for affirming the agency’s commitment to DEI&A in his annual EEO statement to employees, regularly engaging with GAO’s diversity counsel and affinity groups, and participating in many DEI&A events.

Zina explained that the strong emphasis GAO places on respecting, valuing, and treating its employees fairly through a strong commitment to maintaining a skilled and diverse workforce and fostering an inclusive work environment has a direct bearing on GAO’s ability to fulfill its mission: to support the Congress by making government more efficient, effective, and equitable. Research shows that diverse groups allow for critical and innovate thinking, as well as the ability
to better anticipate alternative viewpoints. By leveraging each employee’s unique skills, talents, experiences and characteristics, GAO can broaden the range of perspectives in and approaches to the work. Events over the past year included the pandemic, incidents of police brutality of African Americans, and the most recently, targeted acts of hatred towards Asian Americans. These have brought increased visibility of the inequities and disparities that exist in
this nation and in how the government is addressing these issues. Despite some of the associated challenges, GAO maintained continuity of its DEI&A efforts in their virtual work environment. Zina says that “GAO believes that our workforce should be as diverse as the populous we serve” and that this belief definitely contributes to making GAO such a great place to work.

It also reflects GAO’s commitment to approaching audits of federal programs with a critical eye. GAO included equity as one of the 5 core auditing pillars in an April 2021 Yellow Book update. The technical update provides expanded definitions and examples of the core pillars for examining whether government programs are being administered in a manner that is effective, efficient, economical, ethical, and equitable. This commitment is not new, as equity has appeared in previous editions of the Yellow Book, and GAO has been providing Congress with analysis that includes equity for decades. For example, since the 1970s, GAO has examined racial inequalities in education, voting rights, equal employment, racial profiling, representation in the census, access to capital and housing, health care, and the military justice system. In
September 2020, GAO launched a webpage on Race in America that includes a collection of  GAO reports on this topic.

GAO is currently reporting on how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting different racial groups and also has more work planned. GAO will be evaluating whether the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have controls in place to prevent discrimination at traveler screening checkpoints. Additionally, GAO has work underway examining law enforcement’s use of force and will be looking at initiatives, such as de-escalation training, that could help reduce the use of force. While GAO has been examining program disparities for many decades, it continues to refine its audit tools. In November 2020, GAO convened the Emerging Risks Taskforce to ensure the agency is positioned to tackle emerging risks of importance to Congress and help teams to identify and incorporate issues related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in their assessments, consistent with the agency’s core values and quality assurance standards. This task force will help GAO develop tools to better assess whether and how DEI&A issues are important to audits, engaging the right people within and outside of GAO to provide a diverse range of perspectives, developing and employing the right methodologies needed to answer related researchable questions, and ensuring that review teams have an appreciation for the limitations and sensitivities associated with this kind of work.

Zina is responsible for providing progress updates to the Executive Committee, employees, and select Congressional Committees on GAO’s DEI&A efforts, and also represents GAO at external forums focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility topics. On August 31, she presented, along with other GAO staff, expert researchers, and federal employees, at GAO’s Centennial Webinar Series: Foundations for Accountability: Oversight Issues for the Next
100 Years, on the topic of Leading Practices to Manage, Empower, and Oversee the Federal Workforce. To see more opportunities to view webinars in the series go to https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/hundred-years-of-gao/anniversary-events.

 

Submitted by NCAC Board Member, Steven Putansu

Categories: Current Events, Policy Tags: Tags: , ,

National Building Museum Addresses Social Inequity

The National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., is the nation’s premier museum dedicated to the history and advancement of the “built world,” the places that we construct to live, work, play, worship, and learn. In recent years, the Museum has produced exhibitions and programs on issues of social equity that are impacted by the built world. The ways we choose to design and construct our world contribute to disparities—but, more important, they can, should, and do mitigate them. During the pandemic, the Museum instituted a new program series to learn from architects, landscape architects, planners, interior designers, and other design and design-adjacent professionals to reflect on current events, the history that brought us here, and consider concrete actions that these professions and others are taking to promote justice through the built environment.

Typically, these professionals do not perceive themselves to be “public administrators,” and yet they interact every day with public institutions, the communities in which they design and place buildings and landscapes—structures and spaces with purpose and visibility. They must deal with building and planning codes that help keep our communities safe and should consider the impact of any designed element on surrounding environments. But developers are not always attuned to the neighborhoods where they operate; their objective is profit. So how can the designers and builders be persuaded to take social equity into account? The Museum’s staff has been on the lookout for design firms and public institutions that are approaching their work with social justice in mind. To date, they have found a number of them, and enabled free online access to these presentations to spread the word.

Below are brief descriptions of the five presentations/discussions currently available to anyone, including public administrators, who have responsibility for addressing and mitigating social inequities—which is all of us—in all its many forms. We hope you will review these thought-provoking presentations, contact the presenters where appropriate, learn from them, and keep spreading the word that there are ideas and resources in unlikely places. For access to these presentations, go to www.nbm.org/learn/onlineprograms, then scroll down to “Equity in the Built Environment.” 

 

Presentations Available on the National Building Museum Website
The Rosenwald Schools / MAY 11, 2021

Learn about the Rosenwald Schools, the result of a collaboration between Booker T. Washington and Julius Rosenwald that created nearly 5,000, state-of-the-art schools for African American children throughout the south in the early 20th century.

Restorative Justice / APRIL 29, 2021

Counter the traditional adversarial and punitive architecture of justice by creating spaces and buildings for restorative justice, rehabilitation, and community building, and re-entry housing for people coming out of incarceration.

Improving Racial Equity Through Greener Design /  MARCH 9, 2021

Understand how architects across the U.S. are working to improve the environmental and social sustainability of communities by protecting neighborhoods from gentrification, installing parks and public art exhibits in urban centers, and creating state-of-the-art libraries in financially challenged neighborhoods. 

National Park Service / JANUARY 26, 2021

Learn how the National Park Service is telling the whole story of America’s history through inclusive interpretation.

Mardi Gras Indian Cultural Campus / OCTOBER 14, 2020

Hear how the Mardi Gras Indian Cultural Campus is helping to reverse the negative impacts of economic disinvestment, political neglect, and natural disasters that have eroded community pride and participation in New Orleans’ Central City, a once-thriving hub of African American civic and commercial life. 

Article submitted by NCAC Member: Gene Bacher

Categories: Current Events, Social Justice Tags: Tags:

Dr. Anthony Fauci Awarded NCAC’s Francis Kelsey Award

The ASPA National Capital Area Chapter “Frances Kelsey Award” acknowledges individuals who have demonstrated courage in promoting the public interest while employed in government; as a public servant, contractor, or grantee. The award is named in honor of Dr. Francis Kelsey, a 45-year veteran of the Federal Drug Administration {FDA), who served as the Director of the FDA’s Office of Scientific Investigations, and who courageously resisted pressure to approve the pharmaceutical drug Thalidomide for therapeutic use in the United States in the 1960s after discovering a link between the drug and severe birth defects.

At the time of Dr. Kelsey’s review, Thalidomide had been sold to pregnant women in Europe and elsewhere as an anti-nausea drug to treat morning sickness. The pharmaceutical company responsible for its development wanted a license, for similar use, in the United States.

The Washington Post opined that “[the] tragedy was largely averted in the United States, with much credit due to Kelsey … For a critical 19-month period, she fastidiously blocked its approval while drug company officials maligned her as a bureaucratic nitpicker.” The Washington Post went on to describe Dr. Kelsey as a “heroine” whose “skepticism and stubbornness … prevented what could have been an appalling American tragedy.”

There are fewer honors and awards than people who deserve them. They are rare and are reserved for people who have achieved excellence in their field, made significant observable changes or accomplishments, and whose work products have benefited the citizens of the United States, or humanity at-large, in their field or activity.

Dr. Anthony Fauci meets and/or exceeds the criteria required for consideration as a recipient for the “Frances Kelsey Award”. Dr. Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for more than 50 years and has been an advisor to every United States President since Ronald Reagan. Dr. Fauci became Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immune-deficiency diseases, both as a scientist and as head of the NIAID.

From 1983 to 2002, Dr. Fauci was one of the World’s most frequently cited scientists across all scientific journals. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Dr. Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, for his work on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a United States governmental initiative to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save lives of those suffering from the disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci was one of the lead members of President Donald Trump’s White House Coronavirus Task Force. In the early stages of the pandemic The New Yorker and The New York Times described Dr. Fauci “as one of the most trusted medical figures in the United States”. He made clear the importance of evidence-based decisions and strove to ensure the public was well-aware of the information it needed to inform their actions. Dr. Fauci was recently appointed Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden and continues to serve as the Director of NIAID.

Dr. Fauci shares with Dr. Kelsey a long and distinguished history of public service. Both helped strengthen national health standards protections for citizens of the United States and humanity at-large; are recipients of numerous prestigious awards related to their public service achievements; are recognized nationally and globally as leaders in their respective fields; demonstrated the ability to manage and lead in response to national controversies; and possess a dedication to the duties and responsibilities of public service, as well as a winning temperament.

For the above reasons, the ASPA National Capital Area Chapter is honored to present the 2021 “Frances Kelsey Award” to Dr. Anthony Fauci for his outstanding public service.

Presented by Board Member Arthur Elkins

We were fortunate to have Dr. Fauci send us a video in acceptance of this award.

Categories: ASPA News, Current Events, Event, Latest News, Politics