Jerry Mitchell

Business Improvement Districts and the “New” Revitalization of Downtown

Downtown renewal is occurring throughout the United States. Increasingly, the revitalization process is more about incremental, entrepreneurial efforts to make downtowns enjoyable and less about comprehensive projects that physically alter large swaths of property. A leader in this “new” revitalization of downtown is the business improvement district (BID). To understand how BIDs are improving downtown life, this article presents the results of a national survey of 264 independently managed BIDs operating in 43 states. Among other things, the survey discovered that BIDs in large and small communities are most involved with marketing downtown districts, providing supplemental sanitation and security services, and advocating public policies that promote downtown interests. Although this research did not measure the impact of BIDs, it suggests that they are playing an important role in downtown renewal because of their extensive involvement with the delivery of services that are elementary yet consequential.

Reorganization as Status Drama: Building, Maintaining, and Displacing Dominant Subcultures

establishing organizational cultures, and the impact of sagas and myths on structure.3 Consultants have watched their carefully designed interventions founder on unspoken assumptions. They have devised diagnostic culture audits and culture-gap profiles to guide their actions.4 Bureaucrats and executives act as tribal leaders; they tell stories, repeat myths, and stage rites and ceremonials.5

Representation in government boards and commissions

In the Progressive Era of the early 1900s the idea of placing boards and commissions in charge of public-sector activities was conceived by reform-minded Citizens as a way to improve policy making and administration. Although boards and commissions had existed in some form before and after the nations founding, it was the good-government movement of the turn of the century that established them on the American scene. The feeling was that groups of citizens appointed for fixed terms of office could represent the public interest better than either elected officials (who at the time were seen as too beholden to political machines) or solitary administrators (who could be hired or fired at the pleasure of machine politicians). Along with civil service systems and city manager governments, boards and commissions were viewed as an intelligent way to make the public sector more democratic and competent. Boards and commissions are no less important today. Plural-headed public bodies currently control transit systems, housing projects, waste disposal facilities, universities, parks, airports, hospitals, and sports stadiums. They also approve paroles in the criminal justice process, as well as regulate the nations economy, state utilities, and local elections. Even though appointed boards and commissions have become widely accepted at every level of American government and, for that matter, throughout the world, much is unclear about this form of governance (Corkery and Wettenhall, 1990). It is not easy to find empirical information about the characteristics of boards and commissions, and it is especially difficult to determine exactly who it is they now represent. Although anecdotal evidence alludes to the continued importance of public interest representation (Carver, 1990; Houle, 1989), some studies also indicate that boards and commissions tend to serve particular political, social, economic, and bureaucratic interests (Alexander, 1990; Axelrod, 1992; Gormley, 1983; Henriques, 1986; Horn, 1976; Quirk, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Welborn, 1977). The purpose of this article is to examine boards and commissions as a form of governance in the public sector. The focus is on boards and commissions (referred to hereafter as boards) composed mostly of members who have been appointed (not elected) to control public organizations. I begin with a brief description of how boards are organized and a review of several theories of board governance. This is followed by the analysis of responses from a national survey of board members who were asked several questions about their representation of interests. The final section considers the implications of the survey findings for the reform of plural-headed organizations. The Organization of Boards Government boards are created as part of a statute establishing a public organization (see Table 1 for the types of government agencies headed by boards). A typical enabling statute specifies the method for selecting board members, terms of office, board size, composition, levels of compensation, and general functions. Because there is no model statute for boards, their specific characteristics vary greatly. Table 1 Types of Appointed Plural-Headed Public Organizations Educational institutions include state universities and colleges, as well as local school boards in most large cities (smaller communities usually have elected boards); examples include the Board of Trustees for the University of Arizona, the South Dakota Board of Regents, and the Chicago Board of Education. Government corporations provide services and finance public and private projects; examples include the Tennessee Valley Authority, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Los Angeles Housing Authority, and Idaho Housing Finance Authority. (Local library boards and other similar service providers could also be included here. …

Business Improvement Districts and the Management of Innovation

Innovation is a major theme in contemporary American public administration. Innovative structures are assumed to change both service delivery and managerial behavior. This assumption is currently being tested in many policy areas but perhaps nowhere better than in the management of a recent innovation in public administration: the business improvement district (BID). To discover the relationship between the innovative structure of BIDs and the adoption of an entrepreneurial approach to management, a national survey of BID managers was undertaken. As expected, the survey found that almost half of the BID executives emphasized entrepreneurial activities. But, unexpectedly, the other half were less interested in finding new ways of doing things and more focused on either local political problems or day-to-day supervisory tasks. The conclusion is that innovative structures provide managers with the opportunity to adopt an entrepreneurial approach to management but also with the possibility of not following such an approach.

Education and Skills for Public Authority Management.

to consider. The education and training of public authority managers has been largely overlooked in the literature, curricula, and professions of public administration and business management. This situation exists even though public authority executives manage organizations that have a profound impact on the American polity. The over 6,000 public authorities in the United States represent 7 percent of the approximately 82,000 total governmental units. These entities deliver essential services in states, counties, cities, and towns throughout the nation and issue much of the nonguaranteed government debt in the bond market (Axelrod, 1989, p. 28). Several prominent government agencies in the country are public authorities, including for example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Chicago Housing Authority, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

The ritual of reorganization in a public bureaucracy

Cultural aspects of complex organizations have recently captured the attention of scholars, yet empirical studies in this area remain rare. This paper explores the paradox that reorganizations are common in modern bureaucracies even though they have been found to have few instrumental effects. The present study of a state regulatory agency found that while reorganization had little instrumental consequence, it did provide the context for a power struggle between the administrative and occupational spheres of authority. In fact, reorganization proved to be a highly ritualized arena for significantly altering the agencys informal structure by replacing an entrenched dominant subculture. By examining the symbolic and ritualistic nature of this process, this paper looks beyond the ineffectual manifest functions of reorganization to uncover its power latent functions.

The Response to AIDS in the Workplace among Public, Private, and Non-Profit Employers

The AIDS epidemic presents an enormous challenge for many groups and organizations in society. This study focuses on the response of employers to AIDS in the workplace. The critical decisions confronting employers include whether they should educate workers about the virus, test job applicants and current personnel for AIDS, and accommodate employees that contract the disease. In surveying 208 personnel administrators in New York City, this study finds that public employers are the most likely to provide AIDS information, private and nonprofit employers are more apt to accommodate workers, and few employers are willing to test their workers for AIDS.

The management of the AIDS crisis in the workplace: a survey of employers in New York City:

This paper examines how employers are managing the AIDS crisis in the workplace. The results of a mail survey of 208 public, private and non-profit employers in New York City are presented. The survey discovers most organi zations are following legal standards in the management of the AIDS crisis. Generally, employers are not furnishing AIDS policy statements or testing job applicants and employees for AIDS, but they are willing to accommodate workers who contract AIDS. The management issues surrounding these deci sions are explored.

The identity of undergraduate public affairs education: Opportunities and challenges

ABSTRACT Undergraduate public affairs education is an established part of American higher education. The purpose of this article is to describe the current structure of public affairs undergraduate education, the opportunities for developing degree programs in the context of modern thought about higher education and citizenship; and the continuing challenge to make clear what public affairs is about in the minds of students, employers, and the general public. The article concludes that the identity of an undergraduate public affairs education can be found in the meaning it provides to students seeking to make a civic difference.