Public Policy – Purpose & Objective

Well now, that's quite a title to ruminate over. And yes I think it is high time for us to think about public policy. What is its purpose? And what scope issues are important to consider with this subject matter? Why is this a concern of mine? And why now

All of these questions are good lead-ins to a discussion. Let's see what we can make of this in bits and pieces.

Policy is an intentional statement on how to organize and control resources dedicated to a function or purpose for an organization. Resources include: money, facilities, personnel, and goods or supplies required to fulfill the function addressed. In corporations some policies address human resource use and related expenses, also how operational facilities such as office space, meeting rooms, manufacturing plants, and corporate vehicles are used. Policy formats vary from institution to institution and fit the unique requirements of each. Some commonality takes shape over time in some fields that are common to many organizations.  Human Resource policies are a good example of this. Wage and salary treatment, fairness and market value competitiveness are often addressed by HR policy. So too benefits of all sorts including medical insurance, vacation and sick time, as well as others.

Examples of corporate policy matters could be pursued here, but it is not necessary. I'd rather turn my attention to public policy instead.

Think about public policy for a few moments. Realize that much of policy eventually becomes written into law or standards of performance for many institutions. Public institutions include schools, libraries, park districts, fire districts, city and village governments, county and state governments and their many entities. Universities and state colleges are public institutions funded in the main with public monies. How they are governed and managed is a matter of public interest and goodwill. It is proper to expect that policy would be thought out and set in place to protect public property and finances relative to these institutions.

And public policy does address these entities. But what drives these policies? What demands pull them into conformance with professional formats and accountability? This is the core of my concern.

How private entities protect their assets and goodwill is their business, not mine. You and I need to be concerned, however, over public policy because those policies protect our taxpayer funds invested in governments and their agencies. They are, after all, doing our work for us. They are service agencies. They serve us. To what end will always be fodder for political pundits to argue!

We ask our public institutions to serve us. We elect people to oversee this service and organize resources so functions can be performed on our behalf. This is how schools are funded and operated. We do not personally manage the schools, but others do in our stead. And policy is the method used to specify standards, use of resources, and goals to be achieved over time.

The same works in police departments, fire departments, city and village governments and so forth.

Service. Others doing work that benefits other people. Police do this daily. So do teachers, librarians, administrators for public colleges and universities, water reclamation districts, and so forth. Nowhere are their policies stating how not to serve the public unless such is needed to limit exposure to loss of funds or other resources purchased with public funds.

For example, police policy protects the public and the police force. They are trained to respond to emergencies in manners that protect the public and themselves. Split second judgments must be made by the police personnel in when to use force, how much force is to be used, and so on. They are not instructed to kill bystanders or perpetrators of illegal activities. They are trained and instructed to protect those same people. But when they feel their own lives are in danger or peril, they are trained to take steps to quell the danger to protect themselves and others on the scene. In emergency situations a lot is unknown to the police. Who called them to the scene in the first place? How do they identify that person? Where precisely is the activity in need of suppression and control? How dangerous are the people involved in the event? Is it dark, or shadowy? Are perpetrators in hiding and likely to be sniping at responders?

In such situations it is difficult for anyone, let alone a well trained police officer, to know how to handle firearms; should they shoot to kill, maim or disable? And what distinguishes each of those actions from each other in a dark, foreboding and dangerous setting? Do any of us know what this is like? I don't. But my concern goes to the police officers who are asked daily to step into danger on our behalf.

Mental illness is said to be a large cause of public disturbances. If that is so, how do we manage mental illness in our midst? Long ago we institutionalized mental illness patients. That kept them from public harm, and protected them as well. Living conditions were not pleasant, and in time mental health professionals learned how to treat patients outside of maximum security institutions. They did so with drugs and patients lived at home. Families and friends became the caregivers even though they were not trained to be such. When emergencies arose they were instructed to call the police or 911. They have done so in alarming numbers and now the police and paramedics are the responders at most such emergencies.  Society has pushed this function from health institutions to the police and EMTs.

That is a public policy issue for study and action.

I am not saying police are free to use their firearms willy nilly. There must be ample cause for using their guns to protect themselves and other bystanders. But just how is this determined? And who does the determining?

Until this is well examined and discussed, I hope the public will be patient as public servants consider policy issues and actions to take. Mayors are not automatically guilty of doing nothing or doing the wrong thing. They are not the people on the police line facing imminent danger; the policemen are and they need to be managed effectively. That's where training and policy come into play.

There are other public policy issues to be explored, but this one is the hottest at the moment.

The next one is blaming public servants for things we aren't willing to do for ourselves. And then wondering why many people refuse to work for government agencies or run for public office. The risks  seem too high and the rewards minimal.

January 1, 2016