Political Science

Bureaucracy used to be described in a more positive terms. In fact, it strengthened the organizational structure of the State as society grew and became more complex. Today, more people see it as an organization that threatens democracy specifically the minority rights.

George Lardner, father of murder victim Kristin Lardner, thought the same. He narrated how he witnessed the governments failure to protect her daughter because its bureaucratic agencies failed to uphold the responsibilities entrusted among them.

But was it really the bureaucratic structure introduced by Max Weber that failed
Did Weber failed to mention an important attributes of bureaucracy
Staff, hierarchy, division of labour and competency are among the formal elements discussed in Max Webers model of bureaucracy. Staff refers to the people working in the agency. While division of labour refers to the lined function assigned to each member of the staff, hierarchy is about an organizations line of command. On the other hand, competencies define the ability of each office to perform the assigned tasks. (Fincham, 2005, p.1)

Webers model was used across centuries by different countries, be it private or public sector, because it is necessary to ensure the efficiency of any growing unit. As government or any other organization grows, you will need to create several departments to perform a specific task which will cater to its overall mission. A department supervisor is then needed to oversee the performance of the people assigned on her department. How you distribute tasks will be based on competencies. If these are all practiced effectively by all units, everything could be more organized and therefore, well managed.
What Weber failed to stress is the importance of coordination among each bureau. In fact, he even believed that secrecy is important in any institution it maintains competitive advantage versus rival units.

In Kristin Lardners story, the system failed to protect her because information from one agency is not readily available to another. Further, most of those who have worked on her case did not exert extra effort to dig deeper to know exactly what has to be done. Also, the element of competency in his bureaucratic system where he said that factors like luck and favouritism should not be considered in staff selection process is way too ideal and is almost impossible in our current way of life. As such, to say that bureaucrats will never abuse their position is a lie.

Nevertheless, if it wasnt for these, Weber pretty much covered the attributes needed to make a bureaucratic system work.

Why did Kristin rely on public bureaucracy Why did it fail her
Kristin relied on public bureaucracy because as any citizen of the state, we are made to believe that the government, along with the bureaus that make it function, exists to protect us. We have the legislators to ratify laws, agencies in the executive department to enforce it, and sections under the judiciary department to give verdict as to whom do we enforce it to.

Likewise, she also cannot take matters in her own hands even if she wanted to because the long arm of the law, would also caught up with her. Ordinary citizens dont have much to protect themselves especially since the right of self defense has a very thin line before it can be categorized as an imperfect self defense.

In Kristins case, the system failed her not because the existing policies arent enough to guarantee her safety. Even if right then Congress has not yet passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), we already have laws that protects human life, men and women alike.

Had it been that these laws were enforced properly, the incident that led to her death may have been avoided.

Does Kristins case support or contradicts Webers argument on bureaucracys monolithic power, rationality, hierarchy, specialization, rule enforcement and efficiency

 This case supports Webers monolithic power of bureaucracy. Bureaus are important to carry out tasks needed to make a government function and they need absolute power to do this. However, Weber view selection process ideally where he said that favouritism among others should not be taken into consideration in determining who does what. In this case, apparently, the people hired in the agencies where Kirstin asked for help were not selected properly.

Nevertheless, this case further strengthens my agreement in Webers rational authority. Rational authority is when the law is obeyed because it is perceived to be just and correct. In Kirstins situation, the rule of law and its policies are fair the problem is in the enforcement of the law by those tasked to do so. (Kilcullen, 1996, p.1)

Hierarchy in any organization is also important, as someone has to supervise in order to ensure that everyone is doing what is expected of them. Likewise, specialization and narrowing of rule enforcement also contribute in making a bureaucratic agency more responsive as both are necessary for an effective division of labour.

Should Webers model be modified to pattern it with the characteristics of Americas bureaucracy
Webers model of bureaucracy is consistent with what is needed in order to have a well functioning community. Staffing, hierarchy, division of labour and competency comprise the vital elements for it to work.

The bureaucratic structure of America is comparable to this but while Weber claims secrecy is the key to insulate agencies against external control, today, America now has integrated information technology were sharing of information can be easily done.

What are the sources of bureaucratic failure in Kristins case How do we remedy this and can the case of Centralia No. 5 be compared to her story

Based on Kristins case, bureaucratic failure cannot be blamed with the existence of bureaus itself but with the lack of coordination among these agencies and the incompetence of the people working on it. What happened to her could have been prevented if the bureaucrats performed their lined function to their utmost capability and with integrity. Most failed to do this either because they are not competent enough for the job or simply because they refused to do what is asked of them.

This can be compared to The Blast in Centralia No. 5 where the inefficiency of the Board Examiners for Mine Inspectors and the mines management claimed the life of 111 miners. (Fanning, 2006, p.5)
What can be learned in both tragedies is that the safety of every citizen lies in the hands of the people in power therefore these people should be selected with utmost care and with the strictest competency requirement. The other factors contribute too but the key to all is the selection of the people to fill out important bureaucratic positions.

Why bureaucracies are thought to be important yet disliked Can anything be done to make it more effective ad responsive to the public

Bureaucracy is important because as the government grows big, we need smaller offices to perform and oversee basic function in order to fulfil the governments overall mission. If practiced properly, bureaucracy can be a backbone for effective public administration as each personnel performs a specific function therefore making them more focused and organized.

Majority of the public resents it though because some bureaucrats tend to abuse their position and forget the very purpose why their agency and their position were created. In order to lessen public hostility toward bureaucracy, it is important to ensure that the rights of the minorities are not threatened and that the bureaucrats themselves follow the rules they are trying to impose.

Recommendations
The effectiveness of any agency can be measured by the efficiency of the ones who work for it. It is important to assess to whom we entrust our lives to. There is therefore a need to have tougher guidelines and requirements for those who want to work in any bureaucratic agencies.

It is also important that they be punished for not upholding their lined function, even once. As in the case of Kristin, Cartiers probation officer failed to uphold his responsibilities when he did not act immediately after hearing that his client violated the conditions of his parole.
Further, those jail officers who decide to free Cartier for good behaviour should have been carefully evaluated too. A prisoner should not be released early just because a jail is overcrowded and that the person has behaved accordingly. His mental process should be assessed by an expert to determine whether putting him back to the society would only pose a greater danger to the public or not.

For Cartier, he was released November 5, 1991 but was arrested the same day due to the catsup bottle incident. Had it been that prison officers are capable enough to assess his psychiatric condition, some of Cartiers long list of offense may not have happened as he may not have felt that he can get his way with the law.

Another failure of a bureaucratic system that led to Kristins death is lack of coordination among different agencies. Bureaucracy could have been more effective and responsive to the publics need if coordination was strengthened.

At the time of Kristins death, a central registry for criminal offenses is still non-existent.
Kathleen OToole of the Massachusetts State of Police admitted that some agency databases are not linked and some are also reluctant to share information. She stressed that coordination is important because sometimes, two agencies are serving the same client and sharing information could therefore help them come up a better course of action in any situation. (Hanson, 1996, p-2)

This is especially true in Kristin Lardners case where Cartier was able to dodge the law because government bureaus dont have direct and immediate access to his previous violations. Remember that on December 5 and 19 of 1991, Boston Municipal Court issued an order to appear and an arrest order for parole violation, respectively, not knowing that he was already in jail. This proves the lack of coordination among most agencies

Lastly, it is also important that we learn from our mistakes and act on it. While it is disheartening to know that we only realize what should have been done only after a tragedy, it is better that the society as a whole do what has to be done in order to prevent further occurrence.

Although the ratification of the Omnibus Crime Bill which gives a victim the right to tell the court about the dangers of releasing an accused pending trial came in way too late for Kristin Lardner, it would still be beneficial for all women who may suffer the same fate. The same is true for the Violence Against Women Act.