From the States to Washington: How Workforce Innovation Can Strengthen Public Service

ASPA National Capital Area Chapter explores skills-based hiring, physician licensing reform, and what state “laboratories of democracy” can teach the federal government

By Ryan Heimer, NCAC Board Member

Watch the recording of the event here: https://aspancac.org/recording-of-policy-innovation-in-the-states-ncac-webinar/

What can Washington learn from the states?

That question framed a recent ASPA National Capital Area Chapter conversation with Jonathan Wolfson, a public policy developer, legal advisor, policy advocacy strategist, and former senior government executive. The discussion examined an increasingly important idea in public administration: some of the most consequential innovations in government do not begin in Washington. They emerge in states, where policymakers can experiment with new approaches, learn from implementation, and provide lessons that may eventually inform national policy.


Wolfson focused particularly on two workforce challenges with implications far beyond state government: expanding skills-based hiring by removing unnecessary college-degree requirements and creating new licensing pathways for physicians trained and licensed outside the United States.


Together, the two examples offered a broader lesson for public administrators. Workforce policy is not simply an HR function. It is increasingly a question of government capacity: Who can serve? What qualifications actually matter? How can the government reach overlooked talent? And how do we maintain standards while removing barriers that no longer serve the public interest?

States as Laboratories of Democracy

Wolfson began with the familiar description of states as the nation’s “laboratories of democracy.” Across health care, artificial intelligence, procurement, social programs, and workforce policy, states have room to try different approaches to common problems.


That experimentation matters because the stakes of trying something new nationally can be enormous. A state can test an approach on a smaller scale, discover weaknesses, adjust implementation, and give other governments evidence to consider before following its lead.

Wolfson emphasized that this willingness to experiment crosses partisan lines: both Republican-and Democratic-led states have pursued innovative approaches when policymakers identify a problem and see an opportunity to address it.

The result is not that every state innovation succeeds. The value is that experimentation creates knowledge.


During the conversation, Wolfson pointed to Tennessee, Utah, and Washington State as examples of states that, in his assessment, have demonstrated a willingness to test new approaches. He also observed that smaller states can sometimes have advantages as policy innovators because experimentation can occur at a more manageable scale before a policy is considered elsewhere.


That brings the conversation directly to workforce policy.

Breaking the “Paper Ceiling”

For decades, a bachelor’s degree became a default qualification for many positions, even when the work itself did not necessarily require four years of college.


Wolfson highlighted the growing movement toward skills-based hiring, in which employers examine what a person can actually do rather than using a degree as a universal proxy for ability.


One example came from Maryland. Wolfson recounted the case of an experienced IT security professional who had worked for the National Security Agency and came from a military background but lacked a college degree. When he sought a position with Maryland state government, the degree requirement made him ineligible despite his experience. The case raised a straightforward question: if someone demonstrably possesses the necessary skills, why should the absence of a degree automatically close the door?


The concept has sometimes been described as breaking the “paper ceiling”—the barrier workers face when they possess relevant skills gained through military service, apprenticeships, employment, or other routes but lack the credential traditionally used to screen applicants.


The policy does not mean eliminating education requirements everywhere. A physician still needs appropriate medical credentials; an engineer performing work requiring professional engineering expertise still needs the necessary qualifications. The question is whether a degree requirement is actually connected to the work being performed.


Wolfson said states implementing these reforms have increasingly placed the burden on agencies to justify degree requirements rather than treating them as the default.


That distinction is important. Skills-based hiring is not about lowering standards. Properly implemented, it is about making standards more meaningful.

Implementation Matters as Much as the Policy

Removing a degree requirement on paper is relatively easy. Building a hiring system capable of evaluating skills is much harder.


That point became an important part of the ASPA discussion.


Wolfson identified leadership as one of the key ingredients. In states where governors and senior officials treated skills-based hiring as a genuine management priority—not merely an executive order or announcement—agencies began examining open positions, reconsidering job descriptions, and determining which qualifications were truly necessary.


He cited Utah, Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado in discussing this implementation work. Maryland, for example, developed an internal dashboard to track the process of eliminating unnecessary degree requirements.


This gets to the heart of public administration. Policy announcements alone do not produce outcomes. Implementation requires leadership, management capacity, measurement, and people willing to do the less visible work of translating a reform into everyday operations.


It also requires agencies to answer a deceptively difficult question:
What skills does this job actually require?


As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable of helping applicants answer traditional knowledge-based assessments, that question will become even more important. Wolfson noted that governments may have to rethink how they verify skills in an environment where AI can generate answers that previously required an applicant to possess the information personally.

A Second Workforce Problem: America Needs Doctors

The same underlying principle—looking beyond traditional pathways while protecting standards—appeared in Wolfson’s second major example: physician licensing.


The United States faces significant physician workforce challenges, particularly in primary care and rural communities. Wolfson argued that one potential source of talent has historically been difficult to access: physicians who are already trained and licensed to practice medicine outside the United States.


Historically, state licensing systems generally required internationally licensed physicians to repeat a U.S. residency before becoming fully licensed, even when they had substantial professional experience abroad. Exceptions existed, but they were limited.


States have begun experimenting with another model.


Wolfson described laws creating pathways through which internationally licensed physicians can work toward full state licensure when sponsored by qualifying health care institutions and practicing under specified supervision. The approach attempts to maintain safeguards while recognizing that a physician’s previous training and professional experience may have substantial value.

He illustrated the human consequences with the story of a Ukrainian refugee in Virginia who had been a psychiatry professor and physician in Ukraine but, because he could not practice medicine under the licensing structure then applicable, was instead advertising power-washing services in his neighborhood.


For public administrators, the example raises a larger question: How much talent already exists in our communities that our institutions simply do not know how to use?

Human Capital Is Mission Capacity

Perhaps the most consequential theme of the evening was that workforce policy cannot be separated from the government’s ability to accomplish its mission.


Wolfson described human capital strategy as increasingly central to governing because the government ultimately needs people with the appropriate knowledge and skills to turn policy into action. At the same time, an aging workforce means experienced employees will continue leaving public service, taking years of institutional knowledge with them. Recruiting and developing the next generation therefore becomes part of maintaining government capacity itself.


Technology—including AI—may change how that workforce operates, but it also creates new challenges.


One participant raised concerns about critical thinking in an AI-enabled workplace. Wolfson responded that experienced professionals often recognize questionable AI output because they already possess enough subject-matter knowledge to know when something does not look right. Someone without that foundation may accept an incorrect answer with much greater confidence.

That makes mentorship, professional development, and knowledge transfer increasingly important—not less important—in an AI age.


Wolfson reflected on his own early professional experiences, when more experienced colleagues invited him into meetings and activities that allowed him to observe how the work was actually done. Those informal opportunities helped build judgment that cannot always be captured in a manual, job description, or AI prompt.

A Stronger Workforce Requires a Wider Door

The two central reforms discussed during the event may initially seem unrelated. One concerns state hiring requirements; the other concerns physician licensing. But they share a common principle.


Government should maintain meaningful standards while continually asking whether yesterday’s barriers are still necessary to achieve today’s public purposes.


Removing an unnecessary bachelor’s-degree requirement does not mean education has no value. Creating alternative pathways for internationally trained physicians does not mean abandoning medical standards. Both policies instead ask public institutions to distinguish between a qualification that protects quality and a qualification that has become an unnecessary barrier.


That is a difficult distinction—and precisely the kind of question public administrators are called upon to answer.


The conversation also demonstrated why federalism remains an important source of policy learning. States can experiment. Federal agencies can contribute data, expertise, and scale.

Local governments can identify where policies meet the realities of communities. Researchers and practitioners can evaluate results and share lessons across jurisdictions.


As the ASPA NCAC discussion showed, the most useful policy innovation may not always be a dramatic new program. Sometimes innovation begins with a simpler question:

What is standing between capable people and the opportunity to serve—and does it still need to be there?


For a public sector confronting workforce shortages, technological disruption, demographic change, and growing demands for effective service delivery, the answer could shape not only how the government hires, but how well the government performs.

Categories: Current Events, Federalism, Leadership, NCAC, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , , ,

America at 250: The Work of ‘We thePeople’

As the United States marks 250 years, the arguments that shaped the nation — over liberty, power, representation and responsibility — remain strikingly familiar.

By Ryan Heimer

WASHINGTON — Two hundred and fifty years after Americans declared that the government should rest on revolutionary ideas about liberty and equality, the country is still wrestling with a question the founding generation never fully answered: How can people who profoundly disagree continue to govern themselves together?


The question can get lost amid the familiar imagery of the American founding.


There is George Washington, the commanding general turned president. Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Franklin, the elder statesman. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton debating the structure and power of the new government. John Adams championed independence.


But the American founding was never as orderly as the portraits suggest.


The men who built the early republic argued intensely about executive power, representation, economics, federalism, slavery, political parties and the meaning of liberty itself. The Constitution did not end those arguments. It created a system in which Americans could continue having them.


That complicated legacy has become particularly relevant as the country commemorates its semiquincentennial in 2026 — not simply as a celebration of what happened in 1776, but as an opportunity to consider what Americans inherited and what they will pass on.


Recent discussions organized by the Aspen Institute, Colorado Mountain College and the National Constitution Center have returned to that question by examining both the famous and largely forgotten figures of the founding.


The Aspen gathering began with an idea that sounds simple but carries considerable weight 250 years after independence: Strong communities and democracies require an informed and engaged public, along with the ability to engage in dialogue across differences.


The founding generation certainly understood differences.

One National Constitution Center discussion playfully imagined the founders as members of an unusually argumentative band.


Washington was the frontman trying to keep the group together. Hamilton and Jefferson battled over its direction. Madison and Hamilton collaborated on the Federalist Papers before becoming political opponents. Adams and Jefferson went from revolutionary collaborators to bitter rivals and, eventually, back to friends through their correspondence.


Behind the personalities were serious disagreements about what the new country should become.


The founders knew previous republics had failed. James Madison worried particularly about faction — groups of citizens driven by interests or passions that could threaten the rights of others or the broader public good.


Eliminating faction entirely would require eliminating liberty. The alternative was to control its effects.


The constitutional system that emerged divided authority among institutions and between the national government and the states. Legislative, executive and judicial powers were separated so that political authority would encounter competing political authority.


The Constitution, in other words, did not assume Americans would eventually stop disagreeing.


It assumed they wouldn’t.

The indispensable president

Washington became crucial because someone had to transform the Constitution’s description of a presidency into an actual institution.


He surrounded himself with people holding competing visions of the country.


Hamilton envisioned a commercial republic supported by stronger national institutions. Jefferson favored a more decentralized and agrarian future. Washington increasingly sided with Hamilton, whom he deeply trusted after their experience together during the Revolution.


Yet one of Washington’s most important contributions came not from exercising power but relinquishing it.


That helped establish an American principle that extends far beyond the presidency: The institution must be larger than the person temporarily occupying it.


It is a principle at the heart of public administration.

Presidents leave. Governors leave. Mayors and agency leaders leave. So do the inspectors, analysts, contracting officers, teachers, engineers, emergency managers and other public employees who perform the daily work of Government.


The institution continues.


But focusing exclusively on Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison also obscures how many people participated in building those institutions.


Fifty-five delegates took part in the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787. They arrived in Philadelphia with different backgrounds, interests and visions for the country.


Among them were James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, John Dickinson and Roger Sherman.

Their names may be less familiar. Their contributions were not.

The people behind ‘We the People’

Wilson, a Scottish immigrant, became one of the founding era’s strongest advocates of popular sovereignty.


He argued that political authority ultimately belonged to the people and supported direct election of the president and legislators. He also served on the Committee of Detail and prepared an early draft of the Constitution.


Within that drafting process appeared three words that would come to define the document: “We the People.”


For Wilson, the idea carried profound implications. Political authority did not ultimately belong to a king, state, legislature or president. It originated with the people.


But Wilson’s record also captures one of the central contradictions of the founding.


The advocate of political equality participated in compromises surrounding slavery and proposed the ratio that became associated with the Three-Fifths Clause.


Gouverneur Morris presented a different combination of principle and contradiction.


Morris spoke more frequently at the Constitutional Convention than any other delegate, offered more motions and had more motions adopted. He was also the convention’s most outspoken opponent of slavery.


When the final draft of the Constitution came into his hands, Morris helped transform its Preamble into a statement of national purpose.

“We the People of the United States” would establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure liberty for future generations.


Those words remain more than ceremonial.


They explain why the government exists before describing how it operates.


John Dickinson approached the American experiment from yet another direction.


The author of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania spent decades in public affairs and developed a reputation for defending causes even when doing so carried political or personal consequences.


His Liberty Song offered an early expression of an idea that would become deeply embedded in American political culture: “By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.”


Dickinson nevertheless opposed declaring independence before he believed the colonies were prepared for it. When the decision moved forward, he abstained rather than preventing unanimity — and then served with his military unit.


His story raises a question that remains relevant: Can citizens disagree with a decision and still accept responsibility for the community that made it?


Roger Sherman represents a quieter side of the founding.

He served in the Continental Congresses, helped draft the Declaration and Articles of Confederation, attended the Constitutional Convention and later served in both the House and Senate.


When the convention threatened to fracture over representation, Sherman helped advance the arrangement that produced a House based on population and a Senate providing equal representation to the states.


It was not a perfect theoretical solution.


It was a workable political settlement.


Much of government still operates in that space between the ideal and the possible.

A promise the founders did not fulfill

Any account of the founding also confronts a contradiction that cannot be separated from the
country’s history.


The nation proclaimed human equality while allowing human bondage.

Jefferson understood slavery’s incompatibility with the principles he helped articulate but remained a slaveholder. Washington provided for the emancipation of enslaved people he owned through his will, but slavery remained deeply embedded in the nation’s economy and politics.


The less famous founders were complicated, too.

Dickinson became an abolitionist and freed the people he enslaved. Morris argued forcefully against slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Wilson, despite his arguments for popular sovereignty, participated in compromises with slaveholding states.


The contradiction would follow the country long after the founders were gone.


But the language of equality also created a standard later generations could use to challenge the country.


Frederick Douglass returned to it. Abraham Lincoln returned to it. Martin Luther King Jr. invoked the nation’s founding promises as a promissory note that America had yet to fully honor.


The American story therefore became not only an effort to preserve the founding, but a continuing argument over how to fulfill its promises.

Where constitutional promises become real

That argument does not occur only in presidential elections, congressional debates or Supreme Court decisions.


It also takes place in the ordinary machinery of government.


A legislature can establish a workplace-safety standard, but someone must inspect and enforce it.


Congress can appropriate money for infrastructure, but someone must design, contract, construct and maintain it.


Governments can establish benefits, but someone must administer them. Emergency plans require people to execute them. Public money requires employees who safeguard it. Contracts require professionals who protect competition, accountability and value for taxpayers.


A Constitution establishes authority.


Public administration turns that authority into action.


For most Americans, that is where government becomes real — at a school, permit counter, inspection site, benefits office, public meeting, emergency operations center or city street.


The distance from Independence Hall may be hundreds or thousands of miles.

Constitutionally, it is much shorter.

Liberty’s counterpart

Near the end of the Aspen discussion, Princeton scholar Robert P. George recalled an observation from psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl.


Frankl admired America’s commitment to liberty but worried that freedom without sufficient attention to responsibility could become unbalanced. He suggested that the Statue of Liberty in the East might someday be complemented by a “statue of responsibility” in the West.


It is an especially useful image at 250.


Liberty protects the ability to speak, worship, disagree, associate and pursue one’s own life.


Responsibility asks what citizens do with that freedom.


For public servants, the question carries another dimension. Government authority is never truly theirs. Budgets, data, enforcement powers, procurement authority and institutional knowledge are temporarily entrusted to them on behalf of the public.


That is stewardship.


And the challenge is becoming more complicated.

An old argument in an age of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence can process information on a scale the founders could never have imagined. Governments are exploring automation, predictive tools, digital services and AI-supported decision-making.


Yet the technology does not eliminate the questions of 1787.


Who possesses authority?


Who is accountable when government makes a mistake?


How transparent should a public decision be?


How should efficiency be balanced against due process?


What decisions can technology assist, and which should remain fundamentally human?


Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson, Morris, Dickinson and Sherman would have understood none of the technology.


They would have recognized the argument over power.

That is one reason the National Constitution Center has framed 2026 not as the conclusion of the country’s anniversary celebration but as the beginning of a broader “civic decade” leading toward the Constitution’s 250th anniversary in 2037 and the Bill of Rights’ in 2041.


The framing shifts the anniversary question from “What happened 250 years ago?” toward something more demanding: What will Americans do with what they inherited?

The view from 2076

By 2076, the United States will celebrate its 300th birthday.


Its technology, economy, workforce and communities will almost certainly look different from today’s.


But the central question of self-government may remain familiar: Can a diverse people with competing interests continue governing themselves through institutions they recognize as legitimate?


None of the founders had a complete answer.


Washington demonstrated that power could be relinquished. Madison confronted factions. Hamilton emphasized national capacity. Jefferson articulated expansive ideals while embodying some of the founding’s deepest contradictions.


Wilson emphasized popular sovereignty. Morris helped give the Constitution its national voice. Dickinson connected liberty with responsibility. Sherman demonstrated the practical necessity of
compromise.


Their disagreements helped construct a system in which later generations could continue the argument.

Near the end of the Aspen conversation, historian Walter Isaacson recalled Albert Einstein comparing the American constitutional system to a gyroscope — capable of correcting itself when it appeared to be tipping dangerously.


Isaacson added an important qualification.


The system does not necessarily right itself.

People have to right it.


Constitutions cannot administer themselves. Institutions cannot maintain themselves. Democratic norms cannot guarantee their own survival.


Each generation receives them temporarily.

The generation of 1776 articulated an extraordinary promise. The generation of 1787 tried to construct institutions capable of sustaining it. Later generations fought over who would be included within those promises.


Now the institutions are temporarily in the hands of the generation of 2026.


By 2076, they will belong to someone else.


The Constitution begins with three words that are so familiar their radical implication can be
easy to overlook:

“We the People.”

They never described a people who agreed about everything.


They proposed that people who disagreed could nevertheless govern together.


Two hundred and fifty years later, the experiment remains unfinished.


And the work of “We the People” continues.

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

Who Will AI Serve?

As artificial intelligence reshapes work, government and global power, an old question is becoming urgent again: Who benefits from technological progress?

Artificial intelligence spent much of 2026 racing forward. New models became more capable. Companies expanded their investments. Governments explored new uses for AI. Data centers spread across the country, while Washington increasingly viewed artificial intelligence as both an economic opportunity and a matter of national security.


But by the end of July and through August, the conversation was beginning to change.


The question was no longer simply, “What can AI do?”


Increasingly, it became, “Who will AI serve?”


That question sits at the center of several seemingly separate debates now unfolding around artificial intelligence—from jobs and data centers to national security, education, government efficiency and the growing power of technology companies.


It also received an unexpected voice from the Vatican.

Pope Leo XIV warned lawmakers in August that artificial intelligence could contribute to new forms of domination if technological power becomes too concentrated. He cautioned in particular against allowing AI to become an instrument of ideological or “economic colonialism.”


The phrase is striking, but the concern behind it is straightforward.


Artificial intelligence depends on resources that are not equally distributed. Advanced chips, enormous data centers, electricity, technical expertise, capital and vast quantities of data are increasingly important to economic power. Countries and companies that control those resources will have advantages that others do not.


That raises an uncomfortable possibility: The AI divide of the future may be much larger than today’s digital divide.


Some countries may build and control intelligent systems. Others may simply rent access to them.


The same divide could develop within countries. Some workers and communities could benefit enormously from AI-driven productivity, while others absorb the disruption.

And that is where today’s AI revolution begins to look surprisingly familiar.

We Have Been Here Before

Carl Benedikt Frey explores that history in The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation.

Frey’s lesson is not that technology is bad. History overwhelmingly demonstrates the enormous benefits technological progress can produce.


The problem is the transition.


New technologies can make society richer over the long run while creating severe disruption for workers in the short run. The benefits also do not necessarily reach everyone at the same time.


Consider the Luddites.


Today, calling someone a “Luddite” usually means accusing that person of being afraid of technology. The original Luddites had a more complicated concern.


Machines were changing their economic value.


Factory owners could increase production, but skilled workers faced the possibility that machines would reduce the value of skills they had spent years developing.


Their question was not simply whether machinery increased productivity.


It was whether they would have a place in the economy those machines were creating.


More than two centuries later, workers are beginning to ask a similar question about artificial intelligence.

This Time, the Office Is Part of the Factory

Earlier waves of automation transformed farms and factories. AI is moving directly into offices.


Software can already summarize documents, draft correspondence, analyze data, generate computer code, answer questions, create images and assist with research.


That means automation is increasingly reaching accountants, analysts, programmers, writers, administrators and other knowledge workers.


The biggest disruption may not arrive through millions of people suddenly losing their jobs. It could begin more quietly—with fewer entry-level positions.

That presents a problem that deserves more attention.


Entry-level jobs are not just inexpensive labor. They are how people learn professions.


The experienced analyst was once the junior analyst. The manager was once the new employee. The attorney once handled basic research. The inspector once accompanied experienced inspectors. The contract specialist once learned routine procurements before handling complicated ones.


Those assignments build judgment.


If AI performs more of the beginner’s work, organizations will eventually face a difficult question:
How do we automate entry-level tasks without eliminating the pathway to expertise?


Government should be particularly concerned.


Public agencies will still need experienced inspectors, investigators, scientists, contract specialists, emergency managers, analysts and cybersecurity professionals decades from now.


AI might help those employees become dramatically more productive. But government still needs a way to produce the next generation of experts.


The goal should not simply be replacing people.
It should be making people more capable.

There Is Another Side to the Argument

Yet fear of disruption creates another danger.


Alexander C. Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska make that case in The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West.


Their concern is almost the reverse of Frey’s.


Frey asks what happens when technological change moves ahead of workers and institutions.


Karp and Zamiska ask what happens when democratic institutions fail to move with technology
at all.


Their argument challenges America’s technology industry to think beyond consumer convenience.


Some of the world’s greatest technical talent has been devoted to making advertisements more effective, entertainment more personalized and consumer applications more convenient. Those products can certainly have value.

But a country has bigger problems.


National security. Aging infrastructure. Scientific discovery. Cybersecurity. Energy. Public health.
Transportation. Emergency response. Government modernization.


Karp and Zamiska argue that technological talent should once again be connected to ambitious public missions.


That idea has deep roots in American history.


Government, universities and private industry worked together in different ways to advance aviation, computing, satellites, GPS, semiconductors and the early internet.


The lesson is not that government must control innovation.


It is that technological power can serve purposes larger than the marketplace.


AI now presents the same choice.

Washington and Silicon Valley Need Each Other

The United States therefore faces two risks at once.


Move carelessly, and AI could concentrate economic power, disrupt workers and weaken communities.


Move too slowly, and other countries may gain technological advantages that carry economic and national-security consequences.


There is no easy choice between “innovation” and “regulation.”


America needs both innovation and capable institutions.


Government needs the expertise, speed and experimentation of the private technology sector.


Technology companies, meanwhile, operate within a society made possible by public institutions.


Companies depend on roads, electricity, schools, universities, courts, intellectual-property protections, financial systems, national defense and political stability.


Neither side can fully replace the other.


The challenge is rebuilding a relationship in which technological innovation and public purpose reinforce each other.

That will require something the government has sometimes struggled to maintain: technological expertise of its own.

Government Cannot Outsource Understanding

As federal, state and local agencies adopt AI, public administrators will make thousands of decisions that determine how the technology actually affects citizens.


Contract specialists will decide what systems agencies purchase.


Program analysts will determine whether they improve performance.


Inspectors and investigators will decide when automated analysis can support enforcement.


Human-resources offices will confront workforce changes.


Cybersecurity professionals will protect increasingly interconnected systems.


Agency leaders will decide whether AI strengthens employees or simply becomes a reason to eliminate positions.


These decisions may sound administrative.


Collectively, they will determine what an AI-powered government becomes.


Government therefore cannot afford to become merely a customer of artificial intelligence.


Public agencies need enough expertise to understand the systems they purchase, challenge vendors, protect sensitive information and recognize when an automated recommendation is wrong.


Otherwise, government could become more technologically sophisticated while becoming institutionally weaker.


That would be a dangerous trade.

Efficiency Is Not the Same as Capacity

Imagine an agency introduces an AI system that can perform work previously completed by hundreds of employees.


The immediate savings might look impressive.


But look ten years ahead.


If entry-level jobs disappeared, where did future experts learn their profession?

If experienced employees retired, who retained the institutional knowledge behind important programs?


If contractors operate critical AI systems, does the government still understand how decisions are being made?


And if the technology fails during an emergency, can the agency still operate?


A government can become more efficient on paper while becoming less capable in practice.


That distinction should shape how public agencies measure AI.


The best system may not be the one that eliminates the most positions.


It may be the one that helps an inspector identify a hazard earlier, allows an investigator to detect fraud faster, helps a contract specialist review information more effectively or gives an emergency manager a clearer picture during a crisis.


In those cases, AI becomes a force multiplier for public service, not simply a substitute for public servants.

AI Is Not Just in the Cloud

There is another side of artificial intelligence that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.


AI may appear digital, but its infrastructure is remarkably physical.


Data centers need land.


They need enormous amounts of electricity.


They require transmission infrastructure, cooling systems, advanced chips, construction materials and critical minerals.


That means the AI boom will not remain confined to Silicon Valley.


Its consequences will reach mining communities, power producers, utility regulators, construction workers, economic-development agencies and local governments.


Some communities will host data centers. Others will produce the electricity powering them.


Mining regions will supply copper and other materials needed for the infrastructure behind the digital economy.


Every technological revolution creates geography.

Railroads created transportation hubs. Manufacturing created industrial cities. Automobiles reshaped suburbs. The internet helped create new centers of economic power.


AI will do the same.


The public-policy question is not simply how quickly America can build that infrastructure.


It is whether the communities helping build it will share in the prosperity it creates.


That brings us back to Frey—and to Pope Leo.

Teaching People to Question the Machine

The transition also begins in schools.


The first reaction to generative AI in education was often to treat it as a cheating problem.


That approach is becoming harder to maintain.


Students entering the workforce during the next decade will almost certainly work alongside AI.


They therefore need more than instructions on how to use it.


They need AI literacy.


Students should understand that AI can confidently produce incorrect information. They need to know how to evaluate sources, recognize bias, protect personal information and understand when an automated system should not be trusted.


Most importantly, they must learn how to question it.


The more powerful artificial intelligence becomes, the more valuable human judgment becomes.

Three Warnings, One Question

Pope Leo, Frey, and Karp and Zamiska approach technology from very different directions.


Yet their ideas meet at the same point.


Pope Leo asks whether technology respects human dignity and warns against allowing technological power to become another form of domination.


Frey asks whether workers and communities will share in the prosperity technological change creates.

Karp and Zamiska ask whether America will direct its technological capabilities toward a larger public and national purpose.


Those questions should not compete with one another.


They belong together.


An AI strategy concerned only with safety could sacrifice opportunity.


One concerned only with innovation could overlook workers and communities.


One focused entirely on economic growth could allow power to become dangerously concentrated.


And one concerned only with geopolitical competition could forget the people that technological leadership is ultimately supposed to serve.


The challenge for public administration is balancing all of them.

The View From 2076

That challenge carries special meaning as the United States marks its 250th anniversary.


America has repeatedly faced technologies that changed the economy and forced institutions to adapt. Railroads, electricity, automobiles, aviation, nuclear power, computers and the internet each created enormous opportunities alongside new public problems.


Artificial intelligence may be the next great test.


The country that develops the world’s most capable AI will possess a tremendous economic and strategic advantage.


But that alone will not determine whether the AI revolution succeeds.


The stronger test will be what happens to the people living through it.


Can workers participate in the prosperity automation creates?
Can young people still move from beginners to experts?
Can communities supporting AI infrastructure share in its benefits?
Can Government use AI without surrendering accountability?
Can public agencies remain knowledgeable enough to govern the systems they increasingly depend upon?

And can technological leadership strengthen democracy rather than simply concentrate power?


Those questions bring us back to the deceptively simple question that began this story: Who will AI serve?


Pope Leo reminds us that the answer must begin with people.


Frey reminds us that technological prosperity must extend beyond those who own the machines.


Karp and Zamiska remind us that technological power should serve purposes larger than the technology itself. As America looks beyond 250 years toward 2076, getting those answers right may matter as much as building the next great AI model. The technology will help determine what is possible. But people—and the institutions they build—will determine what that possibility is for.

Categories: Current Events, Latest News, Leadership, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: ,

Who Will Serve? A Conversation with Vince Micone

Fellow for Democracy and Public Service  National Academy for Public Administration and The Bridge Alliance Education Fund

Q: Looking across your career in multiple federal agencies, local government, academia, and nonprofit leadership, what is the defining thread that connects your work in public service?

A: Some of the most important lessons I’ve learned about public service didn’t come from Washington—they started in Butte, Montana.

Public service has been the throughline of my career, but it really began much earlier. My Uncle Mike served as mayor of my hometown when I was growing up. Watching him lead and serve the community shaped my understanding of what government can accomplish when it is focused on people. He showed me that public service isn’t about titles or politics; it’s about improving lives, solving problems, and strengthening communities.

Those early experiences inspired me to pursue a career in public service and eventually led me to opportunities across federal agencies, local government, higher education, and nonprofit organizations. 

While the missions have varied, one thing has remained constant: public service is ultimately about people—both those we serve and those who choose to serve.

Whether you’re a city manager, a teacher, a police officer, a budget analyst, or a cabinet secretary, the goal is fundamentally the same: helping communities thrive and leaving institutions stronger than you found them.

Q: You’ve led large enterprise functions such as HR, acquisition, operations, and shared services. What does it take to make those functions work effectively?

A: Many people think management functions are “back office” activities. I couldn’t disagree more.

Citizens may never meet the acquisition professional who awards a contract, the HR specialist who recruits talent, or the IT professional who keeps systems running. But those individuals determine whether government can actually deliver on its promises.

One lesson I’ve learned throughout my career is that government succeeds or fails not only through policy, but through execution. Great ideas only matter if organizations have the people, systems, and leadership necessary to bring them to life.

That’s why I’ve always believed that effective management isn’t separate from mission delivery—it is mission delivery.

Q: What were some of the biggest barriers you’ve encountered when leading organizational change?

A: Culture is almost always harder to change than process.

Organizations often know what needs to be done. The challenge is building trust, aligning incentives, and helping people understand why change matters. Organizational charts don’t determine success. Success depends on leaders who can create an environment where people understand their role, see how their work contributes to the mission, and feel empowered to solve problems.

When people understand the “why,” they are much more likely to embrace the “how.”

Q: You’ve served in both operational and oversight roles. How do you balance accountability with performance?

A: Accountability and performance are not competing priorities. The strongest organizations recognize that transparency, oversight, and performance are essential components of mission success.

Public trust is built through competence as much as communication. Citizens want government to be responsive, but they also expect it to be accountable.

The most successful organizations I’ve worked in embrace accountability as a tool for improvement rather than viewing it as a burden. When organizations are willing to learn from mistakes, measure results, and continuously improve, they become stronger and more effective.

Q: From your perspective, where do federal management challenges most often originate—structure, culture, incentives, or leadership?

A: All four matter, but leadership is often the deciding factor.

Strong leaders can overcome imperfect structures, outdated processes, and competing incentives. They create clarity, establish priorities, and build trust.

I’ve also learned that leadership isn’t just about making decisions. It’s about creating conditions where good decisions can be made throughout an organization. The best leaders don’t try to have all the answers. They build teams that are capable of solving problems together.

Q: Artificial intelligence is transforming every sector. What should public leaders be thinking about?

A: AI presents tremendous opportunities, but it also raises important questions.

There’s no doubt it can help governments improve service delivery, streamline operations, and make better decisions. At the same time, it raises critical issues involving governance, ethics, transparency, workforce readiness, and accountability.

Ultimately, the AI conversation isn’t really about technology—it’s about leadership. The challenge is ensuring that innovation strengthens public trust, improves outcomes, and expands opportunity while remaining grounded in democratic values.

For public leaders, the question isn’t whether AI will be used. It’s whether we will use it in ways that strengthen public trust, improve outcomes, and keep people at the center of decision-making. Technology should always serve people, not the other way around.

Q: Public trust in institutions remains a major challenge. What are the warning signs leaders should watch for?

A: When people stop raising concerns, leaders should worry.

Healthy organizations encourage questions, dissent, and constructive disagreement. When employees become reluctant to speak up, leaders lose one of their most valuable early-warning systems. Problems rarely emerge overnight; they often develop because people no longer feel comfortable sharing concerns, challenging assumptions, or offering different perspectives.

Leaders have a responsibility to create environments where people feel safe raising issues, proposing new ideas, and engaging in honest dialogue. Trust isn’t built through slogans or mission statements. It’s built through consistent actions that demonstrate respect, transparency, accountability, and a willingness to listen.

I think that lesson applies beyond organizations and to our democracy as well. Public trust depends on our ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Civility doesn’t require unanimity, and compromise isn’t a sign of weakness—it’s an essential feature of self-government.

Our system was intentionally designed to accommodate different viewpoints and distribute power. Federalism, checks and balances, and separate but equal branches of government were not accidents; they were deliberate choices made by the founders to ensure that no single voice or institution would dominate. That can make governing messy at times, but it is also one of the great strengths of our republic.

Strong institutions, like strong organizations, are built when people feel heard, leaders remain accountable, and we remember that disagreement can be a source of strength rather than division. 

Each one of us bears responsibility.  How do we respond to neighbors with whom we disagree?  How do we show we respect the family member who has political views completely different from our own?  How do we handle dissent without compromising our values?  These questions are baked into our democracy and our culture.  It starts with each of us.

Q: In your role with the National Academy of Public Administration and other organizations, what concerns you most about the future of public service?

A: The challenge that concerns me most is attracting and developing the next generation of public servants.

Many young people are looking for careers that provide purpose, impact, flexibility, and opportunities for growth. Public service offers all of these. The challenge is ensuring that we tell that story effectively and create workplaces that meet the expectations of a new generation.

We need to modernize how we recruit talent, develop leaders, and communicate the value of public service. The mission hasn’t changed, but the way we reach people must.

Q: You’ve spent time recently speaking with students in Arizona State University’s Next Generation Service Corps. What gives you hope?

A: The students themselves.

There’s a narrative that younger generations have become cynical about government and public service. That’s not what I’ve seen.

Despite unrelenting headlines about workforce disruptions, political polarization, and declining trust in institutions, many of these students remain deeply committed to making a difference. They understand that governments endure, communities will always need capable leaders, and opportunities to serve will continue to emerge.

Their optimism gives me hope.

What struck me most was that they haven’t given up on public service. They simply want organizations that demonstrate purpose, authenticity, innovation, and impact.

Q: What should public institutions do differently to attract and retain talent?

A: We need to do a better job telling our story.

Young people want to know how their work contributes to something larger than themselves. They want meaningful work, opportunities for growth, and organizations that embrace innovation while remaining grounded in ethics and accountability. In many ways, those motivations are no different from what inspired people when I started my career.

We need to connect careers in government to the outcomes that matter most to communities and to the values that motivate people to serve. We need to do a better job telling the story of public service using the tools that reach the next generation.

Q: After a long career in public service, what core leadership principle has stayed with you the most?

A: One of the most important lessons I’ve carried with me throughout my career is a simple idea: people support what they help to create.

I first encountered that concept as an undergraduate at Arizona State University in a class taught by Neil Giuliano, who later became one of the most transformative mayors in Tempe’s history. Neil taught us that lasting change doesn’t happen when leaders simply announce decisions—it happens when people are invited into the process, their perspectives are heard, and they have a meaningful role in shaping the outcome.

I’ve found that principle to be true whether you’re leading a federal agency, serving on a local commission, managing a nonprofit organization, or teaching students. Inclusive decision-making doesn’t mean everyone gets their way, but it does mean people understand how decisions are made and feel their voices matter.

Some of the best ideas I’ve encountered have come from people closest to the work, not from the corner office.

Q: What advice would you give to early-career public servants who want to lead with integrity and impact?

A: First, remember that leadership is not about position—it’s about service.

Second, stay curious. The best leaders are lifelong learners. They seek different perspectives, ask thoughtful questions, and remain open to new ideas.

Finally, invest in relationships. Public service is a team sport. Your reputation for integrity, collaboration, and follow-through will often matter more than any title you hold.

If you focus on serving others, solving problems, and helping your colleagues succeed, you’ll be amazed by what a group of committed people can accomplish together.

Q: As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, what gives you the most hope about the future of public service?

A: Every generation inherits the responsibility of strengthening our Nation and preparing it for those who will follow.

My father served in World War II. He was part of what Tom Brokaw famously called the Greatest Generation—a generation that answered the call to service, defeated tyranny, and helped secure freedom for millions around the world. Their sacrifice and sense of duty always inspired me. Other generations in my lifetime carried that work forward—leading the civil rights movement, expanding opportunity, advancing equality, and continuing the unfinished work of building a more perfect union.

As we celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary, I am reminded that America’s story has always been written by people willing to serve something larger than themselves. Every generation has faced challenges that seemed daunting in the moment, yet each has found leaders willing to step forward and answer the call.

The future of public service won’t be determined by legislation, budgets, or technology. It will be determined by whether talented people choose to serve—and whether we create institutions worthy of their commitment.

What gives me hope is the next generation.

I’ve spent time with students and emerging leaders across the country, and I see a generation that cares deeply about purpose, impact, and community. They want to solve problems, strengthen institutions, and make a difference in the lives of others. They may approach service differently than previous generations, but their commitment is real.

Our responsibility is not simply to prepare them for leadership. It is to invest in them, learn from them, and create pathways for them to contribute. We must build organizations that welcome their ideas, value their talents, and give them opportunities to lead.

I am optimistic because I believe the next generation is ready.

The question is whether we are ready for them—and whether we will leave the door open wide enough for them to walk through it.

Q:  The most rewarding part of your career? 

A: That’s actually an easy question.

Growing up in a modest family from a small Montana mining town, I could never have imagined the opportunities that public service would provide. I’ve had the privilege of serving in remarkable organizations, working on issues that matter, and contributing in ways that my younger self could never have envisioned.

But when I look back, the most rewarding part of my career isn’t a title, an award, or a position.

It’s the people.

When I think about my career, I don’t think first about the positions I’ve held. I think about the people who walked alongside me on the journey—the mentors who opened doors, the colleagues who became friends, the employees who taught me as much as I taught them, and the students who continue to inspire me. Every success I’ve had is, in many ways, a reflection of the people who invested in me, challenged me, and helped me grow.

Public service has allowed me to build friendships that span decades, work with incredible teams, and witness the best of what people can accomplish when they come together in service to others. 

And the good news is, I think I still have a few chapters left to write.

Categories: Member Spotlight, NCAC, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , ,

Why I Serve: From Coal Country to Public Service

When people think about public administration, they often think about government offices, regulations, budgets, and policies. While those are certainly important parts of the profession, my experience has taught me that public administration is ultimately about people. It is about ensuring that workers return home safely to their families, that communities remain strong, and that Government fulfills its responsibility to serve the public good.


I currently serve as a Mine Safety and Health Inspector with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor. MSHA’s mission is to prevent death, illness, and injury from mining and promote safe and healthful workplaces for America’s miners. Every inspection, investigation, health survey, and enforcement action supports that mission. The work often takes place far from public view, but its impact is measured in lives protected, injuries prevented, and families kept whole.


For me, this work is deeply personal.


I was raised in southern West Virginia, where coal mining is woven into the identity of our communities. Mining is more than an industry in Appalachia. It has shaped our towns, schools, churches, and families for generations. Many of us grew up knowing miners, working alongside miners, or having family members whose livelihoods depended on the mines.


My connection to mine safety began long before I ever became an inspector. My grandfather worked for MSHA and spent his career helping protect miners throughout the region. Growing up, I heard stories about inspections, accident prevention, and the responsibility that comes with ensuring workplace safety. I did not fully appreciate it at the time, but those conversations were my first introduction to public administration in action. My grandfather showed me that
Government could make a direct and meaningful difference in people’s lives. He demonstrated that public service was not simply a profession—it was a calling.


That legacy eventually inspired me to pursue a career with MSHA myself.


I entered federal service through the Pathways Program, which provides opportunities for students and recent graduates to begin careers in public service while developing the technical knowledge and practical experience necessary to succeed. The program allowed me to combine my academic background, interest in public policy, and commitment to worker safety into a career that directly serves the public.


A defining moment in that journey was attending the National Mine Health and Safety Academy in Beckley, West Virginia. Located just miles from where I grew up, the Academy serves as the central training facility for federal mine inspectors and mine safety professionals from across the nation. It is responsible for training the next generation of inspectors who will carry out the mission of the Mine Act, the Miner Act, and protect miners in every mining region of the country.

As a member of the Mine Training Technician Program, I spent months immersed in training that covered every aspect of mine safety and health for metal/nonmetal and coal mines. The Academy’s curriculum includes inspection procedures, accident prevention, investigations, industrial hygiene, emergency response planning, mine technology, and management techniques. Students train in simulated underground mines, specialized laboratories, and hands-on environments designed to prepare inspectors for real-world conditions.


The training was demanding, but it reinforced something important: mine safety is about far more than enforcing regulations. Effective inspectors must understand mining operations, recognize hazards, communicate effectively, and build credibility with miners and operators. The goal is not simply to identify violations. The goal is to prevent accidents before they occur.


Graduating from the National Mine Academy remains one of the proudest moments of my career. Standing alongside fellow graduates from across the country, I realized that we were joining a long tradition of public servants dedicated to one purpose: ensuring that every miner has the opportunity to return home safely at the end of the day. It was especially meaningful knowing that I was continuing a legacy that my grandfather had helped build decades earlier.


My commitment to mine safety was further shaped by one of the defining events in modern Appalachian history: the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.


Like many people in southern West Virginia, I lived near the communities affected by the tragedy. On April 5, 2010, an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine claimed the lives of twenty-nine miners and became the deadliest U.S. coal mining disaster in nearly forty years. For people outside the region, it was a major news story. For those of us who lived here, it was deeply personal.


The effects of the disaster extended far beyond the mine itself. Families lost fathers, sons, brothers, and friends. Churches held memorial services. Schools supported grieving children. Entire communities mourned together. In southern West Virginia, it often seemed that everyone knew someone who was connected to Upper Big Branch.


The tragedy served as a painful reminder that behind every safety standard, every inspection, and every regulation is a human story. Safety requirements do not exist because someone decided to create more paperwork. They exist because previous generations paid a terrible price for lessons learned through injury, illness, and loss of life.


That lesson stays with me every time I enter the mine.


When I conduct an inspection today, I am not simply evaluating compliance with federal regulations. I am helping ensure that history does not repeat itself. Every citation issued, every hazard corrected, and every conversation about safety has the potential to prevent an injury or save a life.


One of the most meaningful aspects of my work is that success is often invisible.

When a hazard is corrected before an accident occurs, there is no headline. When equipment is repaired before it fails, no one outside the operation may ever know. When ventilation systems function properly, when miners receive appropriate training, or when health hazards are addressed before workers become sick, those successes rarely attract public attention.


Yet these preventative outcomes represent public administration at its very best.


The public often notices the government when something goes wrong. As public servants, however, much of our work is dedicated to ensuring that things do not go wrong in the first place. Whether it is a mine inspection, a public health program, an emergency management plan, or infrastructure maintenance, successful public administration often means preventing problems that never become visible to the public.


This perspective became even clearer during my graduate studies.


While serving with MSHA, I completed a Master of Public Administration at Marshall University. My studies exposed me to the broader field of public service and helped me understand how mine safety fits into the larger mission of government. Courses in public management, ethics, organizational leadership, budgeting, policy analysis, and governance reinforced what I was seeing in the field every day: effective government creates public value.


My education also strengthened my belief that public service requires both technical competence and human understanding. Data matters. Technology matters. Regulations matter. But none of those things are the mission themselves. They are tools that help us serve people more effectively.


That lesson has become increasingly important as Government enters an era defined by rapid technological change. I have a strong interest in emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and innovation in public administration. These tools have tremendous potential to improve decision-making, enhance safety, and increase government effectiveness. However, technology should never replace the fundamental human purpose of public service.


Whether using advanced analytics or conducting a mine inspection, the mission remains the same: protecting people and improving lives.


Outside of my federal service, I have continued to seek opportunities to contribute to the broader public service community. Through my involvement with the American Society for Public Administration, Young Government Leaders, and AFGE Local 3181, I have had the opportunity to connect with public servants from across the country who share a common commitment to service.


Recently, I was honored to be selected as the Local Y.O.U.N.G. Coordinator for AFGE Local 3181, helping engage the next generation of federal employees and public servants. The role focuses on leadership development, inclusion, mentorship, and ensuring that younger workers have opportunities to contribute their ideas and perspectives to the future of public service.

These experiences have reinforced something I have come to believe strongly: the future of public service depends on our ability to prepare the next generation of leaders while preserving the values that have guided previous generations.
If there is one lesson I would share with future public servants, it is this: never lose sight of the people behind the policy.


Every regulation affects a worker.


Every budget affects a family.


Every decision affects a community.


The best public servants understand both the technical and human dimensions of their work.


They pursue excellence in their profession while remaining grounded in empathy, integrity, and
service.


My journey—from growing up in the coalfields of southern West Virginia, to following in my grandfather’s footsteps at MSHA, to attending the National Mine Academy, earning an MPA, and serving miners across the region—has taught me that public administration is ultimately about stewardship.


We inherit institutions built by those who came before us. We learn from the successes and failures of the past. And we carry a responsibility to leave those institutions stronger than we found them.


That is why I serve.


I serve because every miner deserves to return home safely.


I serve because strong communities depend on effective public institutions.


I serve because public service can make a real difference in people’s lives.


And I serve because the lessons learned through generations of sacrifice, including tragedies like Upper Big Branch, must never be forgotten. Through vigilance, professionalism, and a commitment to service, we honor those lessons and help build a safer future for the communities we call home.

Categories: I Am Public Administration, IAmPublicAdministration, Leadership, NCAC, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , , , ,

Emerging Technologies and America’s Future: Why Public Servants Need a New Playbook for the AI Age

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

Nine seconds.

That is reportedly how long it took an artificial intelligence agent to delete production databases and associated backups after encountering a routine credential problem. When investigators later examined the incident, the AI’s explanation was as startling as the damage itself:

“I guessed instead of verifying.”

For many readers, the story may sound like another Silicon Valley mishap—a cautionary tale for software engineers and technology startups. Yet the implications stretch far beyond a single company or a single AI system. The incident offers a glimpse into a future where artificial intelligence increasingly moves from providing recommendations to taking actions, often at speeds that outpace traditional forms of human oversight.

For public servants, this should command attention.

The real lesson is not that an AI system made a mistake. Humans make mistakes every day. The lesson is that the system possessed the authority to act before governance mechanisms had an opportunity to intervene. In many ways, this was not an artificial intelligence failure at all. It was a governance failure.

Throughout American history, technological revolutions have forced institutions to adapt. Railroads transformed commerce but required new safety regulations. Automobiles expanded mobility but demanded traffic laws and licensing systems. The internet reshaped communication while creating entirely new concerns around cybersecurity, privacy, and information integrity.

Artificial intelligence presents a similar challenge, but at a much faster pace.

The Stanford Emerging Technology Review describes AI as a foundational technology with the potential to reshape economies, public services, national security, and society itself. Yet researchers also caution that today’s AI systems continue to exhibit unpredictable behavior, hallucinations, reliability failures, and hidden biases. The technology is advancing rapidly, but the institutions responsible for governing it are often struggling to keep pace.

The PocketOS incident highlights this growing gap.

While headlines focused on the AI agent, the deeper issue was data governance. A recent report titled AI Redefines the Governance of Data Based on Use argues that organizations are entering a new era in which traditional approaches to governance are no longer sufficient. Historically, data governance focused on protecting information from breaches, unauthorized access, and theft. Security was the primary concern.

Artificial intelligence changes that equation.

Today, the challenge is not simply protecting data. It is governing how data is used.

Modern AI systems are extraordinarily data hungry. They draw information from structured databases, documents, emails, reports, images, and other sources. Increasingly, they combine information from across organizations without regard for traditional organizational boundaries. The result is a new governance challenge: ensuring that information is used responsibly, ethically, and for its intended purpose.

This shift, from data security governance to data use governance, may be one of the most important developments in the AI era.

For decades, organizations asked whether data was secure.

Now they must also ask whether data is being used appropriately.

Just because a system can access information does not mean it should.

The OneTrust report argues that responsible governance requires understanding four forms of context surrounding data: technical context, consent context, regulatory context, and business purpose. Together, these elements determine not only whether data can be accessed, but whether its use aligns with legal requirements, ethical standards, and organizational objectives.

Public administrators may recognize this concept immediately.

Government agencies rarely make decisions simply because information exists. Public servants operate within legal authorities, policy frameworks, ethical obligations, and public expectations. Data alone is not enough. Context matters.

An MSHA inspector may possess extensive operational information about a mine. However, that information must be used within the framework established by the Mine Act, agency policy, and principles of due process. Similarly, agencies handling citizen information cannot simply feed data into an AI model because it is available. They must consider why the information was collected, whether consent exists, and whether the proposed use aligns with law and public trust.

These concerns become even more significant as AI systems increasingly act on information rather than merely analyze it.

The Stanford review notes that emerging AI agents are capable of carrying out multistep tasks with limited human supervision. Yet researchers continue identifying reliability concerns, including goal drift, overconfidence, memory limitations, and unpredictable behavior. When combined with broad access to data, these weaknesses create new forms of organizational risk.

The PocketOS incident demonstrates exactly why.

The problem was not merely that an AI guessed incorrectly.

The problem was that governance mechanisms allowed it to guess at all.

This is where public administration has something important to contribute.

The Government has spent generations developing systems designed to manage risk. Internal controls, financial audits, workplace examinations, accident investigations, separation of duties, ethics rules, and regulatory oversight all emerged from the same underlying principle:

Trust matters.

Verification matters more.

In mining, ventilation standards exist because experience taught painful lessons about what happens when hazards go undetected.

Workplace examinations exist because assumptions can be deadly. Lockout/tagout procedures exist because relying on good intentions alone is insufficient when safety is at stake.

AI governance increasingly requires a similar mindset.

Organizations cannot rely solely on prompts, guidelines, or user instructions. Governance must be embedded into systems themselves through permissions, audit logs, approval requirements, policy enforcement mechanisms, and continuous oversight.

The OneTrust report describes this transition as a movement toward programmatic governance. Traditional compliance models rely heavily on manual reviews, audits, and after-the-fact assessments. AI systems operate too quickly for those approaches to remain effective. Governance increasingly must occur at machine speed.

This may represent one of the defining governance challenges of the next decade.

Human-speed oversight cannot effectively govern machine-speed decision making.

Institutions must adapt.

The implications extend beyond technology departments. Public trust is increasingly at stake. Surveys consistently show that citizens remain concerned about how organizations collect, store, and use personal information. Many are uncertain whether their data is being handled responsibly. For government agencies, these concerns carry special weight because trust is central to democratic legitimacy.

Citizens deserve answers when automated systems influence decisions affecting their lives.

Why was this decision made?

What information was used?

Who approved the system?

How can errors be corrected?

Can outcomes be appealed?

These are not merely technical questions. They are democratic questions.

Ultimately, the PocketOS incident offers a warning, but it also provides an opportunity.

America has navigated technological revolutions before. Success has never depended solely on innovation. It has depended on building institutions capable of channeling innovation toward public benefit while managing its risks.

Artificial intelligence is no different.

The future will not be determined solely by how powerful AI becomes.

It will be determined by whether governments, organizations, and communities develop the governance frameworks necessary to guide that power responsibly.

The lesson hidden within those nine seconds is therefore much larger than a deleted database.

It is a reminder that the central challenge of artificial intelligence is not intelligence.

It is governance.

And as public servants look toward the future, that may be the most important lesson of all.

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

Recap of “Horrible Bosses: How to Navigate a Toxic Workplace”

Recap submitted by NCAC Board Members, Kitty Wooley and Whitney Meyerhoeffer

On Tuesday, September 10th, the National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society of Public Administrators held a virtual Drinks and Conversations networking event.

Our Drinks and Conversations events arose out of the pandemic when the Board felt it was a good idea to have an open event where our colleagues in public administration could get together and talk about the issues we were facing in a relaxed environment. These events became a wonderful staple of our programming during the pandemic and have kept going with lively discussions. In the past year, the chapter has begun introducing themed Drinks and Conversations events that propose a topic for the discussion. The spirit of the networking event, where we share our experiences with candor and discuss strategies to handle issues, is still ever-present. If you’ve been to one of our Drinks & Conversations events you know this is a time for us to tip our drinkware and have open discussions about a topic.

This week’s event topic was Horrible Bosses: How to Navigate a Toxic Work Environment.

We’ve all heard stories—or perhaps lived them—of challenging work environments, difficult supervisors, or navigating office politics. 

Throughout the 1-hour event, attendees did not just listen; but engaged in an open, honest conversation about their own experiences. The group shared stories, asked questions, and offered each other support and a few strategies to navigate and overcome the obstacles that can make workplaces feel toxic.

We had meaningful and lively discussions and learned from one another’s journeys. 

This event is as much about connecting as it is about learning new strategies. 

This event was not recorded to be mindful of folks sharing experiences and to create a safe open space for sharing.

A member recounted how productivity in his situation ground to a halt under toxic leadership. Several other members shared strategies they used to try and effect change, some still trying to make changes even as they were exiting the job.

Questions arose about why these people do these things.

  1. They have personal agendas.
  2. Something is going on in their lives.
  3. They have some sort of lack of self-esteem, lack of confidence, or they are intimidated by something.
  4. Other reasons

There were also a few books mentioned relative to discussions about leadership, and how to a) be a successful leader and b) how to give and receive feedback to help improve yourself and others in the workplace.

Out of these discussions, as is often the case, other topics for future Drinks and Conversations events were proposed. One that we all agreed would be good to have soon is how to create a safe space for feedback (Thank you, Belva Martin!)

The main takeaways from the event and the most important bullet points the group wanted to make sure everyone knew:

  1. You are not suffering alone. It can feel very lonely and helpless in a toxic workplace. But always know, you are not alone in your struggle. There are others out there on similar journeys and it is essential that you know you aren’t alone and you don’t have to do this alone.
  2. It is important to find allies inside or outside of work. Find a trusted colleague at work or attend a networking event outside of work to find allies. Having a person to lean on, to talk to, or to vent and take a walk with is important to helping you get through this challenging time. The mental work it takes to manage difficult situations is taxing and giving ourselves the grace and space to process is important.
  3. Sometimes leaving has its own impact. While not always the case, choosing to leave your job can be a signal to higher-ups that there is an issue. Strategies such as mentioning to a higher-up leader that the reason you are leaving is because of a toxic situation can have an impact. Other times you can make HR aware that there is a reason why you are leaving. But even if you just leave and say nothing, there is an impact.
  4. Sometimes you learn more from the horrible manager. You learn who you are as a leader or what you are looking for in a company culture. You know the signs of a toxic workplace and can look for them in the future. You also are learning how you do not want to be treated, which in turn helps you be a better leader in the future.
  5. Organizations and businesses with bad leadership are not sustainable. Over time, poor leadership affects productivity, creativity, and teamwork. 

It was a great discussion and a helpful event with support and compassion.

Look for our next Drinks and Conversations event with the topic of creating safe spaces for feedback in the workplace.

Categories: Event, Leadership, NCAC, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , , , ,

20200227-2020 The Story of Unmanned Aerial Systems (aka Drones)

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]

The Partnership for Public Service · 1100 New York Ave. NW ·

Suite 200 East · Washington, DC 20005[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

6:30pm – 8:00pm Presentation & Discussion by Frank Principi [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Eventbrite - The Story of Unmanned Aerial Systems (aka Drones)[/vc_column_text][vc_gmaps link=”#E-8_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” size=””][vc_wp_tagcloud taxonomy=”post_tag”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The Story of Unmanned Aerial Systems (aka Drones)” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center|color:%230069a2″ google_fonts=”font_family:Montserrat%3Aregular%2C700|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal” link=”|||”][vc_text_separator title=”Thursday, February 27, 2020 • 6:30pm-8:00pm” color=”custom” accent_color=”#be2026″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

The advent of unmanned aircraft systems (“drones”) presents very significant commercial, safety and recreational challenges and opportunities in the US and around the world! There are an estimated 1.7 million drones in operation today – growing to an estimated 2.6 million by 2026. The exponential growth of this technology has provided new jobs, an expanded tax base, and a wide-range of quality-of-life benefits. It has also created complex new issues for federal, state, and local officials and governments. Some of the issues involve:

(1) public safety

(2) privacy

(3) law enforcement surveillance 

(4) preventing terrorism

(5) workforce development and training

At the federal level, how are drones included in agencies (such as FAA, DOD, DOL, DHS, and DOJ) strategic plans? Also, what collaboration is taking place among these agencies regarding this emerging technology and this issue listed above? How are agencies focusing on  ethical issues around drones?

Small, unmanned aircraft are required to be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). But there are many challenges to this, and as a result many drones that should be registered are not. As directed in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, DOT has contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration to assess the compliance and effectiveness of the FAA’s registration program for small unmanned aircraft, focusing on FAA’s Interim Final Rule published in December 2015. The study will examine the information collected by FAA, the regulatory environment, organizational capacity, and how non-compliance is determined, including the role and responsibility of local law enforcement.

Frank Principi, a senior advisor on the study, will discuss aspects of drone technology, FAA’s registration program, and conduct a “show and tell” with his own personal drone. Participants will be asked to share their perspective of the challenges and opportunities of drones and to offer recommendations on how to ensure drones continue to be registered, flown safely, and provide new and innovative quality-of-life solutions.             

Presentation by:

Frank Principi is a seasoned management consultant and trusted advisor to c-suite clients in public, private, and non-profit corporations around the world, and is a crisis management expert. He is serving his third term on the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, where he is leading efforts to build public and private sector infrastructure – roads, schools, water/sewer, natural gas, electric, and telecommunications – in this rapidly growing jurisdiction. He has served on several regional and state bodies, including the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (Chairman 2012), National Capital Region Emergency Preparedness Council (Chairman 2013, 2015), Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (Chairman 2016-2017), Northern Virginia Regional Commission, Virginia Association of Counties and Potomac Hospital. He also chaired Prince William’s Future Commission 2030. 

In the past, Frank served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittees on Transportation, Telecommunications, and Finance. His state government experience includes work with the National Governors Association, including the Governors’ response to 9/11. Among his many honors, Frank is the recipient of three Businessman of the Year awards from the Prince William Chamber of Commerce, Arlington Diocese, and Prince William Living Magazine.

 [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

The event is free but registration is required.

Light snacks and refreshments will be served.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

20191120-2019 Affordable Housing and Regionalism

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]The Partnership for Public Service · 1100 New York Ave. NW · Suite 200 East · Washington, DC 20005[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]6:00pm – 6:30pm Social

6:30pm – 7:30pm Program[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Eventbrite - NCAC 2017 Annual Meeting with Keynote Speaker Paul Light, PhD.[/vc_column_text][vc_gmaps link=”#E-8_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” size=””][vc_wp_tagcloud taxonomy=”post_tag”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”Affordable Housing and Regionalism” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center|color:%230069a2″ google_fonts=”font_family:Montserrat%3Aregular%2C700|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal” link=”|||”][vc_text_separator title=”Wednesday, November 20, 2019 • 6:00pm-7:30pm” color=”custom” accent_color=”#be2026″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

A major “wicked problem” at the national state and local levels of governments and many nonprofits is affordable housing. There is not enough needed affordable housing available.

However, building and maintaining needed affordable housing challenges the financial and intellectual capabilities of governments and communities. Recently, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ adopted three housing targets for the Metropolitan Washington DC area between 2020 and 2030. One of the targets was “At least 75% of new housing should be affordable to low- and middle-income households.” Achieving this target as well as the other two targets will require a lot of commitment, dedication and innovation by the District of Columbia and the local governments in Maryland and Virginia.

 The National Capital Area Chapter of ASPA will sponsor a discussion on affordable housing focusing on such questions as:

 (1) What is, or should be, the accountability mechanism for achieving this target?

(2) What tools will be needed to achieve this target?

(3) What are the equity issues around this target and how should they be addressed?

(4) What type of non-financial incentive might serve to encourage increasing needed housing supply?

 Bring your thoughts, ideas and knowledge to this exciting discussion on one of the nation’s and local and state governments’ wicked problems.

 [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

The event is free but registration is required.

Light snacks and refreshments will be served.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

20191017-2019 The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Public Administration

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]The Partnership for Public Service · 1100 New York Ave. NW · Suite 200 East · Washington, DC 20005[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]6:00pm – 6:30pm Social

6:30pm – 7:30pm Program[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Eventbrite - NCAC 2017 Annual Meeting with Keynote Speaker Paul Light, PhD.[/vc_column_text][vc_gmaps link=”#E-8_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” size=””][vc_wp_tagcloud taxonomy=”post_tag”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Public Administration” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center|color:%230069a2″ google_fonts=”font_family:Montserrat%3Aregular%2C700|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal” link=”|||”][vc_text_separator title=”Thursday, October 17, 2019 • 6:00pm-7:30pm” color=”custom” accent_color=”#be2026″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]The increasing use of AI in public administration raises many ethical challenges, not the least of which is ensuring that the decisions made by these systems are consistent with the legal requirements and norms of  the field.  

The National Capital Area Chapter of ASPA will sponsor a discussion on this topic with Professor Pricilla Regan, Professor of Government and Politics at the Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University.  Dr. Regan recently co-authored a chapter titled, “A Public Administrator’s Practical Guide to Ethics and Artificial Intelligence” in The National Academy of Public Administration’s study of the impact of AI in the field. 

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

The event is free but registration is required.

Light snacks and refreshments will be served.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Tags: Tags: , , , , , , , , ,