Notes on “bureau-ethics”

03.26.04 | Permalink | 2 Comments

Question: Can bureaucracy do good (at all)? I often wonder. Three principles might guide us: nonmaleficence, beneficence, and subsidiarity. Not of concern is the criteria of compliance/conformity, bureaucracy’s favorite principle.

Nonmaleficence: Has any person or group been harmed? Here the question isn’t whether a bureaucracy’s rules were broken: that doesn’t qualify as harm. (Persons who disagree should check that they are not stuck in adolescent faith/values development.) Actual harm–and not harm as defined by the bureaucracy–is what counts. Principles: A bureaucracy must not harm persons or groups of persons; A bureaucracy shall not be the final arbiter of what defines harm.

Beneficence: Is the bureaucracy fostering “the good?” Goodness can be defined in many ways, but–however you define it–a bureaucracy that does not foster greater goodness is not legitimate. Perpetuating its existence or the existence of its parent organization does not in my mind constitute “fostering goodness.” Nor does “mission creep.” Principles: A bureaucracy is legitimate only insofar as it fosters goodness; A bureaucracy shall not be the final arbiter of what defines goodness.

Subsidiarity: Is power being collected on high, or distributed to the lowest possible level? Bureaucratic harm is likely the result of either accidental error, individual malice, or systemic abuse of power (intentional or otherwise). Subsidiarity–pushing decision-making down the power ladder–prevents systemic abuse of power. Many bureaucratic procedures are a clear violation of subsidiarity, arising from the fact that bureaucracies are (best) created when tasks cannot be performed (well) except in an accountably routinized way. As time passes, circumstances change, possibly rendering the bureaucracy’s reason for existence obsolete. Other problems arise when external procedures are created for the bureaucracy’s own operational convenience, burdening others for its own sake. Principles: A bureaucracy must act at the lowest level possible, if it must act at all; A bureaucracy must not burden others for its own convenience; A bureaucracy that no longer serves its purpose must be dismantled.

East Atlanta redevelopment

03.25.04 | Permalink | Comments Off

Some news from my neighborhood.

Paying my “ambition tax”

03.18.04 | Permalink | 3 Comments

Why I want a big raise, dammit. (No, I said a big raise.)

And a little factoid for HR: I don’t pay my bills in percentages. So you can shut the hell up about how big that thing you call a “raise” is.

And while I’m thinking about, I’ll take more vacation time too, thanks.

No lesbians allowed

03.18.04 | Permalink | 6 Comments

Why I left the United Methodist Church. Well, that and because baby Jeebus wouldn’t put out.

Lesson learned in Central Square

03.11.04 | Permalink | 4 Comments

One of the best things a friend ever did for me was convince me to go see Neutral Milk Hotel at TT the Bear’s in Cambridge. I had never heard of them, and their performance floored me.

My wife, judging by tonight’s performance, does not appreciate their moody McCartneyesque melodies and, god forbid, trumpet solos. (Wah wah wah, strum my guitar, she says. She also knocks Belle and Sebastien, so what does she know? But then she claims to like Ani “I have boxing gloves on my hoo-ha” DeFranco even.) Then again, my friend knocked my licking scrambled eggs off the plate at IHOP, so live and let live, I guess. Me, I’m still mouring the loss of Heidi. Dammit, it’s Thursday night, and I need a drink.