Nourishing Accountability and Transparency in Local Government A

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Citizenry Involvement: Nourishing Accountability and Transparency in Local Government

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

Alexandra Munoz

December 2018

The Graduate project of Alexandra Munoz is approved:

______Dr. Philip Nufrio Date

______Dr. Henrik Palasani-Minassians Date

______Dr. Kay K Pih, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii

Acknowledgement

I would first like to thank my project advisor Dr. Kay K. Pih, of the Public Administration Program at California State University, Northridge. Professor Pih was always available whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it.

I would also like to thank my loving partner for being the motivating light during the final stages of research, along with my dear friends and family, who fed me, supported me, and relentlessly inspired me throughout this memorable process.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents, Javier and Carmen Munoz, for providing me with endless support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this project. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

Table of Contents

Signature Page iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract vi

Introduction 1

Literature Review 5

Mechanisms and Implementation of Citizen Participation 5

Factors that Affect Citizenry Involvement 8

Mechanisms of Transparency and Accountability 10

Citizen Participation and Accountability 12

Research Design 15

Ethical Considerations 16

Recommendations 19

References 21

Appendix 24

Abstract

Citizenry Involvement: Nourishing Accountability and Transparency in Local Government

By Alexandra Munoz

Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

Did lack of citizen participation in the governmental planning process adversely decrease city officials’ accountability to citizens in the city of Bell, California? There is little research on the perspectives from key stakeholders, citizen community groups and both former and current public officials of Bell, California. Using the qualitative method in the form of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, this study analyzes the perspectives of stakeholders that previous literature lacks. While previous literature makes an undeniable correlation between the level of citizen participation and the level of accountability held to public officials, more could be done considering input from community organizers and city administrators on how to effectively increase methods of citizenry involvement in governance to increase accountability.

Together, citizens and city officials are responsible for increasing mechanisms of accountability and transparency in local governance through citizenry participation.

Introduction

The complex relationship between public officials and their constituents is a multifaceted roller coaster that has transformed throughout the last century. “In the American experience, accountability of public officials is deeply ingrained within the constitutional framework of the

United States”, based on the notion that administrators should always execute their duties in the interest of the public (Comstock, 2001). However, the vitality of transparency and accountability is generally highlighted after municipal scandal and corruption has already occurred.

According to Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch (2012), public administrators consider transparency to be a “quintessential democratic value that undergirds a trustworthy, high- performing, and accountable government” (p. 562). Transparency encourages information sharing, better municipal performance, and reduces corruption. Scholars, policy makers, and citizens recognize that governmental processes and outcomes require transparency to strengthen the foundation for accountability, as effective transparency determinants are an enabler of “good governance” (Grimmelikhuijsen, et al., 2012).

National media attention scrutinizes federal and state governments after scandal and corruption discoveries, highlighting vital transparency, accountability and consequence implementation needed on federal public and political officials (Grimmelikhuijsen, et al., 2012).

Accountability will be defined in this study as “to have to answer for one’s actions and to be responsible for the consequences” (Roberts, 2002, p. 658), answerability from government officials to its citizens. According to Dunn and Legge (2001), “accountability is the obligation owed by all public officials to the public, the ultimate sovereign in a democracy, for explanation and justification of their use of public office and the delegated powers conferred on the government through constitutional processes” (p. 74). Public officials and administrators,

1 regardless of ranking or position, are obligated to assume accountability and provide necessary transparency to the residents of their municipality (Roberts, 2002).

During the early 1900s, one founder of the New York Municipal Research Bureau,

Frederick Cleveland, held that both citizens and elected officials were responsible for ensuring an effective and efficient government (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006). After World War II, in the early to mid-20th century, cynicism in governance increased as transparency in federal government was seemingly lacking (Wang and Wart, 2007). Holding local government managers and elected public officials accountable for their municipal behaviors was not standard administrative practice. Through the 1960s to 1980s, emphasis on citizen engagement expanded, as cities across the United States introduced citizen surveys as a means of evaluating the public’s views, opinions, and preferences (Dalehite, 2008). Towards the end of the 20th century, as citizens became openly distrustful and cynical in their government, practitioners focused on gathering public input and encouraging participation in governance (Wang and Wart, 2007).

Mckinney (1981) emphasized, “understanding accountability may be a key to maximizing responsiveness and effectiveness in the management and delivery of public good and services”

(p.144) in local government.

On July 15, 2010, the Los Angeles Times published an investigative report that shed light on the salaries of top government officials from the small city of Bell, California. Journalists Jeff

Gottlieb and Ruben Vives (2010) highlighted the generous salary of city manager Robert Rizzo, who was grossing nearly $800 thousand per year. Angela Spaccia, assistant city manager, had a sizeable annual salary of over $370 thousand, earnings significantly higher than the average chief city manager during that period. Illuminating financial records already available to the public,

Gottlieb and Vives reported, “Bell Police Chief Randy Adams had an annual salary of $457,000, more than double New York City's police commissioner” (2010).

According to the Los Angles Times, “Bell City Council members were able to exempt themselves from state salary limits by placing a city charter on the ballot in a little-noticed special election held in 2005 that attracted fewer than 400 voters” (Gottlieb, 2010) from a population of roughly forty thousand. Less than one percent of Bell residents voted in favor of the charter measure, which ultimately passed. The majority of the votes counted were absentee ballots, as citizens failed to show up to the polls. The lack of participation from Bell residents

(lack of voter turnout) in this special election severely impacted the city’s fiscal budgeting process in the years that followed. In the year following the conversion of Bell into a “charter” city, salaries for council members jumped more than 50%, to nearly $97 thousand annually for part-time administrative positions, salaries paid for by the predominantly blue-collar residents of

Bell (Gottlieb, 2010).

The purpose of this study is to analyze the power citizens have in their government through active participation and continuous engagement. The city of Bell scandal is a prime example of corrupt officials misappropriating millions from public funding for years, without documented knowledge or responsiveness from residents. Lack of civic participation by residents diminishes accountability and transparency (Halachmi and Holzer, 2010), which allowed corruption to cultivate and led to misappropriation of public funds in the city of Bell. Citizen involvement in local government and active public participation is vital in maintaining accountability and increasing efficiency in local government (Wang and Wart, 2007). This research will focus on the significance of mechanisms of citizen participation in increasing transparency and nourishing accountability in local governance.

Citizen participation is defined in this study as active involvement of constituents in the government planning process. Citizen participation includes: voting in local elections, attending public city meetings, creating voluntary community organizations, participating in public city forums, occasionally reading the city newsletter, participating in community organizations, attending city budgeting meetings, etc.

This analysis strives to determine whether citizen participation in local government is fundamental in increasing transparency and nourishing accountability in local government.

Examining cases from local governance in Los Angeles, California, concentrating on the City of

Bell that has been afflicted with corruption due to absence of citizen involvement will assist further research in understanding the dynamics that lead to transparency and increased answerability in government. Did lack of citizen participation in the governmental planning process adversely decrease city officials’ accountability to citizens in the city of Bell, California?

Literature Review

The literature examines existing research analyzing how public participation and consistent citizen involvement in local government is fundamental in increasing levels of transparency and maintaining accountability. Public administrators, academics and advocates for citizen involvement see its significance in “fostering citizenship values, enhancing accountability, improving trust in government, maintaining legitimacy, and building consensus”

(Yang and Pandey, 2011, p. 880). The literature examined recognizes a correlation between citizenry participation and increased accountability in local administration. Increased public involvement in local government operations creates constituents who are better informed through increased communication and transparency; knowledgeable citizens nourish accountability in governance.

Mechanisms and Implementation of Citizen Participation

This study defines citizen participation as involvement and partaking of constituents in the government planning process. Various mechanisms include, but are not limited to, the following: voting in local elections, attending public city meetings, creating voluntary community organizations, participating in public city forums, participating in neighborhood organizations, attending city budgeting meetings, etc. The numerous methods used to elicit public participation all have their share of strengths and weaknesses (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006).

Meaningful participation in governance requires solid and systematic mechanisms of participation, as many citizens resort to simply voting in their local election as the only means of involvement, if any.

According to Kaifeng Yang and Kathe Callahan (2007) effective, meaningful citizenry involvement is rare, as bureaucrats are typically disinclined to include constituents in the

5 decision making process until after decisions have been made. Weaknesses in participatory methods are echoed by Carol Ebdon and Aimee Franklin (2006) noting, “no participatory mechanism is flawless, and many types of participatory mechanisms foster communication between citizens and public administrators differently” (p. 442). However, while methods like focus groups and public meetings are not exactly suitable for citizens to directly influence the decision-making process, these mechanisms “can be used as forums for preliminary information sharing” (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006, p. 440).

Public hearings and surveys communicate ideas and opinions from citizens that is generally one-way information; there is no dialogue between administrators and their constituents on the issues or policies presented. These mechanisms usually present minimum citizen involvement as constituents feel that “decisions have already been made and that public hearings are held because they are required by law” (Callahan, 2002, p. 299), not because administrators or elected officials desire citizen input. Carol Ebdon (2000) analyses citizen involvement in the budgeting process across national local governments. Ebdon recommends gathering citizen input early in government decision-making process through town meetings, as it allows citizens a greater opportunity for open dialogue between city officials and citizens.

“Holding meetings prior to the development of the budget gives citizens a greater chance for dialogue specific to the budget than does receiving citizen input on various issues throughout the year” (Ebdon, 2000, p. 387).

Kathe Callahan (2002) studies the budgeting planning process to analyze the efficiency of citizen advisory committees in local governments. Ebdon and Franklin (2006) agree the budgeting process is a vital channel for citizen participation due to crucial municipal evaluations made during the planning process; “it is an important opportunity for meaningful citizen

6 participation” (2000, p. 383) and input in legislative decision-making. Callahan (2002) suggests utilizing citizen advisory committees as the “easiest and most economical method of participation in the budgetary decision making process” (p. 300). Callahan (2002) finds that effective participation requires “the sharing of information between citizens, the municipality they serve, and the departments they advise” (p. 303). Her research concludes civilian budget advisory committees are most successful when they have detailed objectives and goals. “The goals must be articulated and reinforced on a regular basis” (Callahan, 2002, p. 315) and public support from the governing body is critical.

Maureen Berner (2003) published a study in the Public Administration Quarterly that analyzes the significance of timing in citizenry involvement mechanisms. Berner (2003) found public hearings to be the least effective method of citizen participation due to the timing of the hearings, which are normally held at the end of the decision-making process. She supports Ebdon and Franklin’s (2006) recommendation to actively collect citizen input early and often, before final budgeting positions or decisions have been made, to effectively influence the process.

While the concept of active and necessary citizenry participation is supported by common political theory, questions arise on whether it should be limited or extensive (Berner, 2003).

Some practitioners view extensive citizen participation at the local level as fundamentally required for maintaining a just government. Yang and Callahan (2007) advocate citizen participation with limitations. The authors do not support citizen involvement in all governmental decisions or functions, however, there are statutes, processes and problems that require higher participation than others. “The ‘wicked’ problems confronting government require more direct forms of citizen involvement, whereas simpler decisions surrounding routine

7 administrative functions require less direct forms of participation” (Yang and Callahan, 2007, p.

260).

Factors that Affect Citizenry Involvement

Public administrators and practitioners distinguish various factors that stimulate public participation in governance. Berner (2003) cites the key to cultivating citizen participation lies in those in control: the elected officials, the public administrators. However, Kaifeng Yang and

Kathe Callahan (2007) argue factors contributing to levels of participation in local government decision-making are directly in the hands of elected officials and constituents. Yang and

Callahan (2007) contend that elected officials might emphasize involvement in administrative and policy process in an attempt to preserve citizen support, calling for government accountability and transparency. The authors conducted a study surveying county and city administrators across the nation to test the theory of bureaucratic responsiveness in influencing citizen involvement. Findings substantiated that elected officials “are the leading proponents of citizen involvement,” with citizens also “perceived as enthusiastic in promoting citizen participation” (Yang and Callahan, 2007, p. 254). However they acknowledge the limitations to their study based solely on managerial perceptions, excluding interpretations from stakeholders or constituents themselves. Innes and Booher (2004) also encourage effective collaboration between citizens and government officials in the process of administrative decision-making to

“solve complex, contentious problems” (p. 419).

Carol Ebdon and Aimee Franklin (2006) published a study in Public Administration

Review identifying four elements they believe influence citizen participation, focusing on the government budgeting process. According to the authors’ research, the common, critical elements to structuring citizen budget participation are listed as: “the governmental environment,

8 the design of the process, the mechanisms used to elicit participation, and the goals and outcomes desired from participation” (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006, p. 438). The authors acknowledge limitations and significant gaps in literature involving citizens in the budgetary planning process, and recognize the lack of successful case study examples. They do, however, continuously state the research gap yields of the actual use of citizen participation in budgeting.

Hatcher (2015) cites the theoretical framework of Ebdon and Franklin (2006), and contributes to the findings of Chistensen et al. (2011), in analyzing the value of public involvement in municipal budgeting. The author collected exploratory data through surveys administered to financial directors in cities across the nation that received the Government

Finance Officers Association (GFAO), a prestigious municipal award. The author discovers that budget directors “view traditional participation methods, such as the public hearing, as the most effective, compared to more interactive and other participatory methods” (p. 645).

Authors Xiao Wang and Montgomery Wart (2007) constructed a model to assess the argument that citizen participation enhances public trust in government. Wang and Wart (2007) reason that well-informed constituents are more likely to participate in governmental proceedings, which improves accountability of an organization, and leads to public trust.

The authors include five factors that might connect participation towards public trust: “consensus building, ethical behaviors, accountability practices, service competence, and managerial competence”. The researchers found that 46 percent of their nationwide sample of public managers argued for public participation to be used in budgeting, yet they perceived public participation as having little effect on consensus building, accountability, and managerial competency (Hatcher, 2015 p. 649). According to their study, while they found citizens are least participatory with administrative planning processes, citizen participation did have an effect on

9 behaviors and service competency. Limitations in this study include data gathered on a small survey pool of only administrators’ perceptions on this topic, not actual proven methods, and completely excluding the citizen’s perspective. Wang and Wart (2007) acknowledge the limitations of their study pertaining solely on the perceptions of administrative experts, and encourage further research on citizens’ perceptions. Hatcher (2015) corroborates the research of

Wang and Wart (2007) finding managers to be “supportive of participation in the abstract, but more critical of public involvement in practice” (p. 656).

Mechanisms of Transparency and Accountability

Safeguarding legislative power from exploitation continues to present challenges in local government, when elected officials do not have an established system of accountability.

“Accountability mechanisms always operate after the fact: exposing actions to view, judging and sanctioning them” (Grant and Keohane, 2005, p. 31). Active accountability mechanisms in local governments are conventionally accentuated and implemented only after municipal corruption or lack of transparency has been exposed. Berner (2003) recommends citizens advocate for governmental transparency through regular participation in government proceedings.

Delmer Dunn and Jerome Legge (2001) argue that accountability mechanisms compel administrators to contemplate potential consequences of their actions. “Without accountability, their discretion would be unfettered and might lead to irresponsible actions” (p. 75). According to Dunn and Legge (2001), the principal goal of accountability mechanisms in legislative and administrative procedures is to “assure responsiveness by government to citizens’ preferences and needs” (p. 75). The authors survey the perceptions local public mangers across the United

States have on the significance of accountability and responsibility mechanisms. Responses from local city administrators surveyed concluded that various sources in their environment exercise

10 accountability mechanisms and define responsibility, which include their profession, the government board, citizens, the general public and legislative cases (p. 84).

Eugene Bardach and Cara Lesser (1996) from the University of California, study accountability in legislation as it pertains to whom, and accountability for what. Their study takes a conceptual approach as they question what a good accountability system is. The abstract examination aims to show that the “locus of authority” must be shifted in order to produce a good accountability system. “A complex system of governmental accountability will use many interconnected subsystems of subagents to link the principal, that is, the citizenry, with the line- level agents who are involved directly in producing the results” (Bardach and Lesser, 1996, p.

199). The authors argue that authority must be shifted from top, executive levels of governance down to lower level staff, and constituents, so that the legislative and executive agencies may be held accountable. Bardach and Lesser (1996) emphasize, “the idea that the key principal in this system of principal-agent relationships is not the legislature or the chief executive; it is the citizenry taken as a whole” (p. 200).

Nancy Roberts (2002) proposes transparency and accountability to citizens can be ensured through the simple exchange of dialogue between public officials and constituents.

Roberts suggests using dialogue as a useful mechanism when other accountability methods have failed. However, Roberts generalizes this mechanism based on one successful case study conducted in the late 1980s, and does acknowledge there are significant challenges and risks in the transparent nature of open dialogue.

Soonhee Kim and Jooho Lee (2012) argue governmental transparency and responsiveness to constituents can be significantly enhanced through the utilization of electronic government (e- government). “Utilizing new technologies to enable greater participation in policy formation and

11 evaluation and to create greater information exchange between citizens an government” (Kim and Lee, 2012, p. 819) increases transparency. The authors advocate implementing simple web- based application tools to facilitate “e-participation”, offering citizens more opportunities for legislative information, involvement, and responsiveness. Kim and Lee (2012) argue constituents show greater trust in local government “that provides e-participant programs when they have a more favorable assessment of government performance toward more transparency” (p.826).

Citizen Participation and Accountability

While previous literature correlates a progressive relationship between increased citizen involvement and increased transparency and accountability in governance, the aforementioned research lacks successful case studies evidencing implementation of effective citizenry participation.

According to Arie Halachmi and Marc Holzer (2010), meaningful citizenry involvement through performance measurement enhances transparency and accountability, along with citizen satisfaction and trust in government. The authors conducted an examination into the correlation between citizenry participation and accountability in governance. The authors quote Al Gore

(1999) “if we want our government to be accountable for every taxpayer’s dime, then we need a workforce that will be held accountable for real results”. Their study finds that citizen participation in designing performance measurements directly contributes to transparency, a key element of accountability. “Citizen participation in the design and utilization of performance measurement can facilitate a better understanding of accountability both within and outside the bureaucracy (Halachmi and Holzer, 2010, p. 391). Performance measurement data can assist public managers improve their understanding of how their constituents perceive their agencies,

12 and can “help them be more accountable, namely meet public expectations about the use of resources, quality levels or service and true priorities” (Halachmi and Holzer, 2010, p. 394).

Public administration doctoral student at Rutgers University, Tony Carrizales (2004), supports performance assessment programs as a mechanism to foster effective accountability through citizen participation. Carrizales (2004) compares various case studies from city municipalities across the United States that have implemented the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s

Performance Assessment of Municipal Governments Program. The primary project goal of the

Sloan Program was to involve all stakeholders (citizens, elected officials, and public administrators) in evaluating and refining overall government performance and influencing governance towards the needs of the public (2004, p. 124), promoting accountability and transparency. Highlighted in the report are “Lessons from Iowa”, where the Alfred P. Sloan

Project funded a program that engaged communication and collaboration among administrators, elected city officials, and their constituents to evaluate city services using established performance measures (p.126). The Iowa project emphasized “citizen perspective in performance measurement, rather than the managerial perspective”, and emphasized “public dissemination of performance measurement results to hold governments accountable” (2004, p.127). While the article presents various mechanisms of citizen involvement that encourage transparency and communication between citizens and public officials, it lacks long-term results in the case studies.

Maureen Berner, Justin Amos and Ricardo Morse (2011) published an article questioning, “What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government?” The authors acknowledge previous research promoting advantages to strong citizenry involvement in government. However, they admit realistically implementing effective participation methods can

13 be challenging. Involvement mechanisms present difficulties in implementation because “the inclusion of citizens in the process of government often clashes with a specialized, routine- oriented, hierarchical, and impersonal bureaucracy” (Berner, et al., 2011, p. 158).

Berner (2003) presents the initial gap in research that we continue to encounter throughout the literature, the lack of common established mechanisms for effective public participation. “Finding a common method for participation in routine government policy-making that is considered effective by citizens, elected officials, and administrators alike is the eventual goal” (Berner, 2003, p. 412). Much of the research conducted on the methods of citizen participation has surveyed the opinions of the public administrators, the elected officials, nearly excluding the perspectives of key stakeholders, the citizens. While the research makes an undeniable correlation between the level of citizen participation and the level of accountability held to public officials, more could be done considering input from constituents on how to increase effective methods of citizenry involvement in governance to successfully increase accountability mechanisms.

Research Design

To further understand how citizen participation directly affected accountability and transparency in the City of Bell, California, the qualitative method will be utilized in this study in the form of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. Key stakeholders identified primarily for this research are citizens involved in participation projects and both current and former city council members of Bell, California. For the purposes of this study, descriptive research design will be applied to allow for depth and flexibility when collecting qualitative data.

This study will comprise of semi-structured interviews to explore the research gap from previous literature. Community group organizers of Bell Association to Stop the Abuse

(BASTA) will be the initial participants selected for interviews. This group is key in this study for its activism in local government, effectively stimulating and encouraging residents to participate in their governance. Concerned citizens of Bell formed the community organization

BASTA in 2010, in response to the lack of transparency and clear signs of corruption in their government (Garcia, 2010). Following the Bell scandal BASTA successfully contributed to assembling the community to register 1,400 new voters and collected 16,000 signatures to recall four council members (Garcia, 2010). Ten BASTA members who joined in 2010, including the founders, will be interviewed to provide greater understanding of the relationship between civic engagement and accountability as how it relates to their government. Snowball sampling will be used to connect with and interview five key officials, both current and former, responsible in the recall of the ex-city council members. Insight from city officials involved in holding previous city council members accountable will expand the research in increasing mechanisms of answerability and transparency previous literature lacks.

Every participant will be asked similar questions in regards to his or her idea of appropriate levels of citizen participation. Questions will be predominantly open-ended; to allow for flexibility and encourage all opinions and concepts of what constitutes participation. As previous studies have found, meaningful citizenry involvement in governance is assuring for enhancing transparency and accountability, along with citizen satisfaction and trust in government (Halachmi and Holzer, 2010). All participants will also be asked a set of predetermined questions regarding what behaviors are required from both citizens and city officials to enhance transparency and accountability in his or her government. All definitions,

(transparency, accountability, citizen participation etc.) will be defined to each participant the context of this study prior to the start of the interview. The interviewer will also have a list of open-ended questions regarding the participant’s opinions on best mechanisms of citizen participation and accountability for local governments. Further research may address the challenges of effectively implementing consistent and effective methods of civic participation.

Ethical Considerations

All participants will receive a consent form to read and sign prior to being interviewed.

There will be no deception. Participants will be given the option to be interviewed face to face or by telephone. Any participant who requests a telephone interview will be mailed or emailed the adult consent form four days in advance and will be asked to email or mail the form back to researchers prior to the scheduled interview date. Consent forms will be available in the participant’s preferred written language of English or Spanish.

Since the population’s language demographic consists of predominantly English and

Spanish speakers, participants will have the option to choose their preferred spoken language of

English or Spanish prior to commencing the interview.

Participants will not directly benefit from participation in this study.

This study will provide a more in-depth understanding of the correlation between citizenry participation and how it directly impacts accountability and the level of transparency in local government. Participants highlighted in this study will illuminate stakeholders that have been predominantly overlooked in the literature. Public administrators, while a primary influence in local government involvement, are not the sole stakeholders in citizenry participation. In- depth surveying of the central resident population is key in identifying influences that stimulate and encourage citizens to actively contribute in their governance. It is imperative that all participants, city officials and citizens, are made well aware of the research goal prior to commencing each interview. Participants will also be informed that he or she may feel free to pass on or not answer any questions that may produce discomfort or uneasiness for them.

Participants will be made well aware that they may discontinue the interview at any time.

Respondents who are employed by the city of Bell may reasonably encounter professional risks such as possible negative career consequences due to participating in this study. Respondents may also encounter personal risks with pending or lack of legal citizenship status, therefore strict confidentiality will be maintained. All identifiable information that will be collected from the participant will be kept completely separate from the research data.

Identifiable information may include the following: age, race, ethnicity, education, employment, income and location. These identifiers will be used in the methodology section of the paper for demographic purposes, but will only be reported in aggregate and will be separated from the interview data.

All research data will be stored electronically on a secure laptop with complete password protection. Only top researchers will have access to said laptop and knowledge of passwords. A

17 list connecting the participant with their identifying information will be transcribed. All transcribed research data will be kept securely locked in a cabinet in the researchers office.

Authorized researchers will have access to the participant records. No other individuals will have access to the participant records. Any information that personally identifies a participant or their agency derived from this research will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without the participant’s separate consent, except where specifically required by law. Any publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not include identifiable information about the participants. Pseudonyms will be used on all published or presented material. The research data will be kept until the research is published and/or presented, then all data will be destroyed.

Recommendations

Residents and city officials are responsible for increasing mechanisms of accountability and transparency in local governance to prevent future corruption. Community groups, such as Bell

Association to Stop the Abuse (BASTA), and the public officials involved in the recall of corrupt ex-city council members have a massive sphere of influence in present-day Bell. Public managers and officials are key actors in dynamically initiating citizen involvement efforts (Yang and Callahan, 2007) in their municipalities. The broad approach is implementing efficient, practical and mechanisms of citizen participation in Bell, California.

Government-citizen communication and cooperation must be improved to encourage citizens to engage in their local government. Public managers must strive to construct simpler methods of dialogue between residents and administrators, including elected officials. An example is modernizing and streamlining the City of Bell website and other social media platforms for the city and its public officials. Practical measures include training public managers on network management skills and group processes (Yang and Callahan, 2007). Marketing involvement opportunities to Bell residents to educate them on current municipal decision- making process may produce effective participants. Chief public officials and citizen community groups (BASTA) need to unite to stimulate effective communication and action. Citizen community groups must strive to ensure citizen competence and wide-ranging representativeness in their resident engagement outreach. Improving relations between residents and administrative officials is also detrimental in improving transparency, which ultimately reduces corruption and develops fundamental trust in government.

This study analyzes the perspectives of stakeholders that previous literature lacks: citizen community groups and both former and current public officials. While the literature makes an

19 undeniable correlation between the level of citizen participation and the level of accountability held to public officials, more could be done considering input from community organizers and leaders on how to effectively increase methods of citizenry involvement in governance to increase accountability. As surveyed by Yang and Callahan (2007) and Berner et al. (2011), each group of stakeholders has distinct ideas on what constitutes “effective” citizenry involvement in government. Until public administration practitioners acknowledge the need to expand on differences in stakeholder (citizens and public officials) perspectives, implementing practical and effective mechanisms will continue to present challenges.

References

Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human services collaboratives: For what? And to Whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 6(2), 197-224. Retrieved from http://www.jsto2r.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/1181589

Berner, M. (2003). Current practices for involving citizens in local government budgeting: Moving beyond method. Public Administration Quarterly, 27(3/4), 410-432. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41288205

Berner, M., Amos, J., & Morse, R. (2011). What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government? Views from city stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 128-163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41804544

Callahan, K. (2002). The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of local governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 295-319.

Carrizales, T. (2004). Citizen-Driven Government Performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(1), 123-129. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/3381214

Christensen, R., Goerdel, H., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2011). Management, law, and the pursuit of the public good in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 21, I125-I140. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/40961924

Comstock, A. (2001). Maintaining Government Integrity: The Perspective of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Remarks to the Global Forum II Law Enforcement workshop, Retrived from https://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/rm/2001/may/3403pfhtrn/

Dalehite, E. (2008). Determinants of performance measurement: An Investigation into the Decision to Conduct Citizen Surveys. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 891-907. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/25145676

Dunn, D., & Legge, J. (2001). U.S. Local Government Managers and the Complexity of Responsibility and Accountability in Democratic Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 11(1), 73-88. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/3525638

Ebdon, C. (2000). The Relationship between Citizen Involvement in the Budget Process and City Structure and Culture. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(3), 383-393. doi:10.2307/3380726

Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437-447. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/3843923

Grant, R., & Keohane, R. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. The American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29-43. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/30038917

Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Welch, E. (2012). Developing and Testing a Theoretical Framework for Computer-Mediated Transparency of Local Governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562-571. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41506806

Halachmi, A., & Holzer, M. (2010). Citizen participation and performance measurement: operationalizing democracy through better accountability. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 378-399. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41288353

Hatcher, W. (2015). The efficacy of public participation in municipal budgeting: An exploratory survey of officials in government finance officers association’s award-winning cities. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 645-663. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/24772910

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

Kassel, D. (2008). Performance, Accountability, and the Debate over Rules. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 241-252. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/25145599

Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41688008

King, C., Feltey, K., & Bridget O'Neill Susel. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.

Lukensmeyer, C., & Brigham, S. (2002). Taking democracy to scale: Creating a town hall meeting for the twenty‐first century. National Civic Review, 91(4), 351-366.

McKinney, J. (1981). Process accountability and the creative use of intergovernmental resources. Public Administration Review, 41, 144-150.

Neshkova, M., & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 22(2), 267-288. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/23250882

Richter, W. L., & Burke, F. (Eds.). (2007). Combating corruption/encouraging ethics: A practical guide to management ethics (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefieled.

Roberts, N. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/3110324

Wang, X., & Montgomery Wan Wart. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers' perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265-278. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/4624563

Watson, D., Juster, R., & Johnson, G. (1991). Institutionalized use of citizen surveys in the budgetary and policy-making processes: A small city case study. Public Administration Review, 51(3), 232-239.

Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing Citizen Involvement Efforts by Local Governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191-216. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/20447586

Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249-264. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/4624562

Yang, K., & Pandey, S. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/41317387

Appendix

Sample Interview Questions

The qualitative method will be utilized in this study in the form of semi-structured, in-depth interviews. For the purposes of this study, descriptive research design will be applied to allow for depth and flexibility when collecting qualitative data.

The following are sample questions exploring the perceptions from both citizens and city officials regarding how citizenry participation in government affects transparency and accountability in Bell, California.

1) Participation

A. What does citizen participation mean to you?

B. How do you participate in you local government, if at all? (i.e. voting in local elections, attending public city meetings, creating voluntary community organizations, participating in public city forums, participating in neighborhood organizations, attending city budgeting meetings, etc.)

C. What are the barriers or limitations to effective public participation?

D. How can effective public participation be achieved, if at all?

E. How do you feel your participation influences the decision-making process in your local government, if at all?

2. Transparency/Accountability

A. What does government accountability mean to you?

B. How can accountability be ensured?

C. How does the city of Bell attempt to educate the public its governmental proceedings?

Do you feel it is effective?

D. To your knowledge, what are the established methods of accountability used in your local government?

3. Other

A. In your opinion, does the volume of citizen participation in Bell’s government affect the level of transparency in government? Why or why not?

B. In your opinion, does citizen participation affect methods of accountability in Bell’s government? Why or why not?

C. In what ways can citizen participation contribute to good governance?

D. How would you improve methods of citizen involvement in the city’s government?