text:
Civic Literacy and Ethical Public Service: An Under-Appreciated Nexus
August 2, 2012 Academic Papersconstitutional literacy, ethics, public officialsSheila
A few years ago, the political blog Talking Points Memo established the "Golden Dukes," an award intended to recognize, as they put it, "great accomplishments in muckiness including acts of venal corruption, outstanding self-inflicted losses of dignity, crimes against the republic, bribery, exposed hypocrisy and generally malevolent governance." (TalkingPpointsMemo.com, 2011) The awards were named for Congressman-turned-inmate Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who was identified as an icon of modern scandal, combining, as the blog cheerfully reported, "outlandish corruption, national security, sex, and sheer cartoonish ridiculousness."1 As that tongue-in-cheek award signifies, over the past few years, Americans have been treated to a steady stream of ethically troubling disclosures involving the federal government, typified by the scandal about Jack Abramoff's widespread influence peddling.2
It may be comforting to believe that such ethical transgressions occur more frequently in Washington, where well-heeled lobbyists are in a position to fund serious deviations from ethical norms. But in point of fact, there is ample evidence that public officials at all levels, as well as nonprofit managers who do business with government, may engage in behaviors that are ethically dubious, while often seemingly unaware of their mpropriety (Lessig 2011).
In 2011, for example, in Indianapolis city administration negotiated a 50-year lease of its parking infrastructure to a corporation. Leading up to the required City-County Council vote, there was an intense debate about the merits and terms of that agreement, the unusual length of the lease, the bona fides of the chosen vendor, and the wisdom of handing over control of the City's curb lanes to a contractor. Ultimately, the Council approved the lease by a single vote. The transaction would have failed had the Council President—a lawyer employed by the firm that represented the vendor—recused himself. There was no outcry from local media, although several local legal blogs pointed out that this vote constituted a clear conflict of interest and certainly appeared to be in violation of the applicable Canons of Legal Ethics. To the extent there was any discussion at all about the propriety of this councilor's behavior, it was shrugged off as "business as usual."
Also described as "business as usual" was a recent article (Kopsa, 2012) about a multi-year, 1,500,000 grant of Medicaid dollars to the Indiana Family Institute (IFI) for a "Healthy Marriage" demonstration project. The story raised a number of legal and ethical questions concerning this particular use of Medicaid funds, including the multiple roles played by IFI's Program Director—the person in charge of the "Healthy Families" project. In addition to her duties as contractor—duties requiring that she deliver a taxpayer-funded program in a constitutionally appropriate (i.e., secular) fashion—this individual was a lobbyist for Indiana Right to Life, and a principal of a political action committee that lobbies for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. All three organizations are explicitly grounded in conservative Christian theology. The article identified several elected officials whose support of this grant was seen to be payback for the political support of these organizations and their members.
It is the thesis of this essay that when breaches of the public trust engender the sort of cynicism displayed in these and similar examples, that is not only a situation constituting a genuine, non-trivial threat to the ability of administrators to conduct the business of government, but also a failure of elementary constitutional and civic education.
Much of the available literature on what constitutes ethical behavior has focused upon the teaching of ethics, the effect of contracting out and the New Public Management, or the consequences of increasing "marketization," and diminishing concern for the public good (Ejka-Ekins 1998; Fredrickson 2005; Metzger 2003; Singer 2003; Smith & Lipsky1993; Zanetta & Adams 2000). These are important topics, but considerably less attention has been paid to the nexus between ethical public behavior and American constitutional culture. Yet as scholars have long recognized, ethical public service is rooted in, and defined by, the founding premises of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is for that reason essential to government legitimacy (Rohr 1988; Rosenbloom Carroll & Caroll 2000; Light 2012). It is important to emphasize the often-conflated distinction between personal and professional ethics in this context. While personal ethics are important to avert what Adams and Balfour (1998) have called "administrative evil," the professional ethical obligations emphasized by Rohr and Rosenbloom, among others, require fidelity to the principles of the American legal and constitutional system. As Kennedy and Schultz have written,
"The decision-making procedures and substantive protections for rights found in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights define the first layer of duties and obligations that public
Servants have. Together, they define how decisions are to be made (procedural justice)
and what can be decided or done (substantive fairness or justice)…the Constitution and Bill of Rights form the first tier of a public administration or public service ethic." (2011, 74-75)
Public administrators and those who teach them need to recognize both the constitutional roots of public sector ethics, and the negative systemic consequences of frequent deviations from ethical behavior. Average citizens may not be able to articulate the constitutional bases of their discomfort with conflicts of interest and other ethical departures, but they expect their public servants to understand that they have an ethical obligation to place the public good above private interest.
Ethics and Constitutional Culture
Unlike citizens of countries characterized by racial or ethnic homogeneity, American identity is rooted in allegiance to a particular worldview; it is based upon an understanding of government and citizenship originating with the Enlightenment and subsequently enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Understood in this way, "constitutional culture" has a considerably broader scope than law and policy; it is an expression of the ongoing dialectic between a society's legal norms and the broader culture within which those norms are situated and must be understood. The American "constitutional culture" arises from the operation of our constitutional values in a radically heterodox culture, and the effects of that interaction on policy choice and contestation.
Decisions made by those who designed America's constitutional architecture have shaped contemporary definitions of public and private, notions of governmental and personal responsibility, and conceptions of human rights. They dictate the manner in which we frame and understand civic responsibility, and allocate collective social duties among governmental, nonprofit and private actors. In short, those initial constitutional choices have been constitutive of a distinctive American culture. What Kennedy and Schultz have called "the Constitutional Ethic" is behavior grounded in, and compatible with, that American Constitution (2011). When significant segments of the population do not know the history, philosophy or contents of the Constitution, they cannot judge the propriety of behavior of public administrators. Available data from a multitude of sources, however, gives evidence of a widespread lack of constitutional competence and civic literacy in the United States.
The statistics are depressing: Only 36 percent of Americans can correctly name the three branches of government (Annenberg, 2007). Fewer than half of 12th grade students can describe the meaning of federalism (NAEP, 2006). Only 35.5% of teenagers can correctly identify "We the People" as the first three words of the Constitution (National Constitution Center, 1998). The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 2006 report on civics competencies indicates that barely a quarter of the nation's 4th, 8th and 12th graders are proficient in civics, with only five percent of seniors able to identify and explain checks on presidential power.
Survey after survey adds to the dismal picture, and while the various ways in which the questions are asked and the answers tallied may result in slightly different percentages depending upon the survey, the overall conclusions are consistent and discouraging. A 1998 study conducted by the National Constitution Center found that more American teenagers were able to name the Three Stooges than the three branches of government (59% to 41%), and more knew the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air than could name the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (94.7% to 2.2%). Although 58.3% were able to name Bill Gates as the "father" of Microsoft, only 1.8% could identify James Madison as the father of the Constitution.
During the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, Findlaw fielded a survey assessing public knowledge of the Supreme Court. This was during a time when news about the Court and arguments about the Justices were prominent; despite that heightened public attention, nearly two-thirds of respondents could not name a single member of the Court.
Last year, Newsweek Magazine, in a story titled "How Dumb Are We?" found that, out of the 1000 Americans who took the test, 29% could not name the Vice-President of the United States, 73% couldn't identify the reasons for the Cold War, and 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.
In an article written for the International Journal of Public Administration, William Galston noted that "It turns out that today's college graduates know no more about politics than high school graduates did 50 years ago, and today's high school graduates are no more knowledgeable than were high school dropouts of the past" (Galston, 2007).
Some of the available research argues that civic ignorance has remained relatively constant over time. During the 1990s, Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter reviewed thousands of questions from three groups of surveys administered over a four-decade period.
They concluded that there was statistically little difference among the knowledge levels of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (Carpini and Keeter, )
Other research suggests that civic literacy has, in fact, declined, particularly for twelfth grade students. At the end of the day, however, whether our current low levels represent a decline is less important than the fact that they may be too low to sustain both democratic governance and citizens' ability to evaluate public sector ethics. Data reinforcing that message is plentiful. As Niemi and Junn wrote in Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn,
More recently, demonstrating the ignorance of the public has become something of a cottage industry, with one researcher after another trying to find a more absurd example of what Americans do not know about politics and government or a more apt metaphor to express their collective ignorance. (1998)
The Issue of Trust
It is significant for public administration that the Constitutional ethic grows out of an approach to government based upon—and structured to so as to minimize—distrust. The battle to separate from England was triggered by distrust of King George III and the British Parliament. The weak government of the Articles of Confederation was rooted in distrust of central authority; the Constitution of 1787 was the result of distrust of both weak decentralized government and "majority factions" that could infringe upon the rights of individuals. In fact, our entire constitutional machinery—separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, bi-cameral legislatures—grew out of an effort to address this fundamental suspicion of concentrated power, and the belief that abuses of power are likely in the absence of structural constraints on administrative behavior.
This mistrust could be considered constructive, since it led to the creation of institutional limitations on abuses of power. But a different form of distrust has quite negative implications for democratic governance: distrust of individuals who are in a position to abuse power for personal gain or to engage in other forms of self-dealing. That sort of mistrust is corrosive. It generates public suspicion that those who participate in government are corrupt. When such suspicion or cynicism becomes pervasive, it becomes much harder for government to generate citizen engagement, let alone the voluntary compliance necessary to achievement of public purposes (Scholz 1984; OECC 2000). If it is important for citizens to believe in the honesty of those who serve, if it is important that most officials be viewed as trustworthy public servants, it is obviously important that government officials not only be honest, but that they be seen to be honest—both personally honest and honest in their fidelity to the ethics of public service. And that raises the subject of conflicts of interest.
Recognition of the problem of conflicts goes all the way back to John Locke, who argued that individuals could not be judges in their own cases, because it is human nature to abuse authority. To a large extent, concern about conflicts of interest is about checking that very human tendency to self-interest and partiality. That concern—that government power would be misused for personal or political gain—is at the very root of our constitutional system of checks and balances. As our society has become more complex, our understanding of the Founders' concern has evolved. Forty or fifty years ago, a conflict of interest would have been defined as a situation where a person makes a decision in his official capacity that results in personal financial gain. Classic examples include the purchasing agent who hires a company in which he is a major shareholder, or the city council member who buys property in a certain location because he knows ahead of time—and ahead of others—that the city plans to build a new park on the site. When the council member sells the land to the government for a nice profit, she benefits from special insider knowledge garnered by virtue of her position as a decision maker. That classic definition of conflict of interest required that one personally profit from an official decision.
The concept has a far broader meaning today. At the very least, it now includes conflicts of roles or duties—precisely the sort of conflict that led the Founders to create our system of checks and balances. Most ethicists today believe a conflict of interest exists when there is a clash in duties owed—where an individual has obligations to others, and those others have interests that are at odds with each other (Kennedy & Schultz 2011; Cooper 2006; Stark 2000). Today, scholars recognize that public officials fill at least two roles–one as a government official ethically required to serve the public interest, and another as a private citizen or employee–and that the duties owed by virtue of those roles can—and often do—conflict, as in the Indianapolis case cited above.
A number of scholars have described how understanding of what constitutes a "conflict" and an "interest" has expanded over time (Kennedy & Schultz 2010). Increasingly, conflicts of interest are now conceptualized as a form of biased judgment. If—due to some particular interest or belief—a public official is incapable of rendering a fair judgment or decision, the existence of that bias may constitute a conflict of interest. This definition of a conflict is rooted in the ideal of government impartiality addressed by Locke and others, an ideal embedded in our Constitutional Culture. In a highly polarized political environment that increasingly rewards politicians with rigid ideologies, this sort of conflict is anything but an abstract concern.
Another aspect of current understanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest is that a conflict need not be personal. Institutional or organizational self-interest can also be a form of conflict. James Madison and the other constitutional framers understood the concept of an organizational conflict quite well. They recognized that people working in government would inevitably be partial to their own agency and branch. They addressed this problem structurally, with a variety of checks and balances, including, importantly, the separation of powers, on the theory that the self-interest or "team loyalty" of those working in the three different branches of government would operate to constrain that favoritism.
In the last few years, the Wall Street financial scandals have highlighted these organizational conflicts of interest. In those cases, supposedly independent stock analysts and rating agencies employed by investment houses were under considerable pressure to give favorable reviews of stocks their companies were selling or rating. Even if they didn't receive special bonuses from giving positive reviews, there was an overall institutional incentive to ignore red flags—an organizational conflict of interest. (It is also worth considering what role organizational loyalty paid in the 2011 Penn State child molestation scandals in which people allowed their loyalty to the sports program to over-ride their duty both to the law and to innocent children who were victimized.)
This institutional understanding of conflicts also applies to improper relationships between government agencies and vendors, to take just one example. If an agency has developed too close a working relationship with a vendor—to the extent that the vendor will have difficulty providing genuinely impartial assistance, or the agency will have difficulty providing appropriate oversight—there is a conflict of interest. This conflict, a form of biased judgment, occurs even if no specific individual stands to make money. The conflict in this case is less about personal benefit than it is about institutional bias, but it is no less corrosive to the public trust, and no less a breach of public sector ethics.
Yet another type of conflict may be unique to the public sector. It isn't even necessarily an actual conflict of interest. It is the appearance of impropriety. Increasingly, government ethics codes address not only actual conflicts, but specific situations or decisions that lead to the appearance of impropriety. A typical "appearance of impropriety" provision reads:
To maintain public confidence in County government, County employees carry out official duties in a manner which avoids both actual conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. To this end, employees regularly monitor their own conduct to be alert to the possibility of actual or apparent conflicts of interest. When an actual or apparent conflict of interest is presented, appropriate steps are taken to eliminate it. When in doubt as to whether a conflict of interest exists, County employees should err on the side of assuming that a conflict exists. (Dakota County, Minnesota 2009)
Such an appearance of conflict might arise from personal friendship or family relationship. If, for example, an official's relative is bidding on a contract, there is an appearance of a conflict if that official is involved in awarding the contract. The relative may have been the low bidder and the official may have meticulously followed all applicable procedures. But if citizens see a public administrator awarding a contract to his relative, the facts will not matter. There is a perception that favoritism was involved and therefore an appearance of impropriety. Our entire constitutional system of checks and balances was devised to minimize the abuse of governmental authority and to assure citizens that public affairs were being conducted in the public interest—to keep government both trustworthy and trusted. When public administrators don't understand the importance of, or reasons for, that constitutional principle, when they act in ways that give rise to the appearance of impropriety, they violate a basic constitutional norm.
Similar observations may be made with respect to the issue of gifts. Gifting, especially in the public sector, is ethically problematic. (Kennedy and Schultz 2010) The public understands that just as there are no free lunches, there are no free gifts. Gifts, even if given freely and without any nefarious intent, are not without expectations of reciprocation. (Anyone who has received a Christmas present from someone to whom they have not sent one understands the power of gifts.) A gift requires both a thank you and reciprocity—generally with something of similar or greater value. The issue is not the market value of the gift, although its size and timing may lead to serious questions about its intent and whether it actually is a bribe. Instead, gifting in a professional setting raises problems of conflict of interest, bias, and poor judgment that can give rise to an appearance of impropriety and self-dealing.
Gifts are especially problematic when they are from lobbyists to government officials. Gifts to lawmakers (such as meals, junkets, and other gratuities) smack of influence peddling and buying of votes, and raise concerns that improper influence is determining which bills are heard or squashed, how favors are returned, and how earmarks are allocated—that the mechanics of democratic decision-making are being subverted for private gain. If a conflict of interest is a situation where interests or duties conflict, gifting can legitimately be considered a form of conflict. Elected officials have a constitutional duty to serve their constituents; gifts from a lobbyist can put recipients in a position where they feel obligated both to the gift-giver and to their constituents. In effect, accepting a gift creates a conflicting set of loyalties. Once again, appearance trumps reality and undermines confidence in government objectivity. Even if there is no genuine conflict of interest, there is an appearance that the gift has compromised the decision-maker's objectivity.
Actually, the problem with gifts is not that the recipient is personally benefitting in some significant way. It is the confirmation of a public perception that individual citizens lack power and voice. Polls regularly confirm that large percentages of the citizenry believe public officials are more likely to listen to contributors than to citizens (Newport 2010; Jones 2002; CBS News Poll 2011; Jordan 2011); such attitudes do serious damage to the public's faith in government and the political process—precisely the consequences that checks and balances were intended to avoid.
An especially troubling category of the gifting problem is what we sometimes call "pay-to-play". This refers to the expectation that individuals will make payments—essentially bribes or kickbacks—in order to participate in a governmental activity. The most common type involves campaign contributions made in order to secure access to an elected official or in order to insure that a bid for a government contract is successful—or at the very least, considered.
Pay-to-play may not be tantamount to bribery, but it creates concerns about bias, appearance, and all the other problems that gifts raise. As a result, in some states—New Jersey is an example—it is illegal for bidders on certain government contracts to also be political contributors (N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.3 through 20.25, 2005). Pay-to-play, besides raising the gifting issues noted above, is about unfair access and the manipulation of democratic processes. It denies some citizens the ability to compete fairly because of an inability or unwillingness to make a special payment in order to get into "the game," whatever the game may be. It makes a mockery of another core principle of our constitutional system: governmental neutrality.
These concerns with gifting and pay-to-play are not necessarily remedied with de minimis exceptions. Small bribes are still bribes, and small gifts still can achieve their desired impact. If sociological claims are correct, small but frequent gifts can eventually affect attitudes (Lessig 2011; Cialdini 1993). Congressional ethics rules adopted in 2007 prevent the accepting of gifts valued at $50 or more. While $50 is a small sum, cumulatively many of these gifts, whether from one recipient or many, can become valuable. Furthermore, there is evidence that the more gifts an individual accepts, the less likely she is to believe that accepting those gifts has any effect upon her behavior. (Kennedy and Schultz, 2010) Worse still, in some situations, officials come to expect the gifts as a matter of course, and individuals who fail to provide them are excluded or discounted. At this point, gifting does not look all that different from the sorts of institutionalized systems of bribery and corruption encountered in some third-world nations that have earned justifiable scorn. Worse still, these practices are corrosive of the constitutional premises of American public service.
American citizens have a right to expect public officials to be servants of the public—to discharge their duties on the basis of what is in the public interest, not what will generate private gain. In the United States, behavior that is consistent with the public interest is by definition behavior that is consistent with the terms and underlying philosophical commitments of our Constitution. When there is widespread cynicism about the motives and behavior of public officials, when those officials are believed to be acting in ways that are inconsistent with their constitutional obligations, government legitimacy suffers, and with it, the voluntary compliance with law that makes governance possible. When the checks and balances designed to counter self-serving behaviors are believed to have failed, the term "politician" connotes a less than admirable person. In such an environment, good people increasingly "opt out" of public service, initiating a vicious cycle in which increasing numbers of sleazy and/or unpalatable candidates reinforce public cynicism and make it ever more difficult for the legions of dedicated and honorable public officials. It is a cycle that must be broken.
If the status of public service is to be elevated, both the ethical behavior of public administrators and the public's perceptions of that behavior must be improved. That requires that both public administrators and the public understand the constitutional bases of those ethics.
In an environment where the U.S. Congress has an 11% approval rating, it is not enough to point out that a very small minority of public servants acts in ways inimical to the public good, true as that may be.
The discussion of public ethics needs to be elevated and placed squarely within the constitutional culture. The constitutional obligations assumed by public servants should be made explicit, as should the explanation of why fidelity to those obligations—which are in addition to the more generally recognized elements of personal ethics–is so important. In order to accomplish that, we need to take seriously the obligation to improve American civic education—what David Rosenbloom has called "Constitutional Competence" and the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement calls "Civic Learning." Ultimately, an informed and civically-literate public is the only guarantor of ethical public service.
1 Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pled guilty to tax evasion and conspiracy in 2009 and was sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in prison. It is estimated that Cunningham collected $2.4 million in money, goods and services during his tenure in Congress.
2 In 2006, lobbyist Abramoff pled guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. He spent 3 years in prison and upon his release, worked as an accountant at a kosher pizza restaurant and wrote a book.
Adams, G.B. and Balfour, D.L. 1998. Unmasking Administrative Evil. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Annenberg Public Policy Center Judicial Survey. 2007. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/20071017_JudicialSurvey/Survey_Questions_10-17-2007.pdf
CBS/Associated Press. 2009, February 11. Disgraced Rep. Gets 8 Years In Prison. February 11, 2009. CBS News Politics. Retrieved at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/03/politics/main1366161.shtml
CBS News Poll. 2011, June 28. United States of Influence. CBS News Poll. Retrieved at http://www.scribd.com/cbsnews/d/58857865-CBSPoll-United-States-of-Influence
Carpini, Michael Delli and Scott Keeter. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cialdini, Robert B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Quill William Morrow.
Cooper, Terry L. 2006. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dakota County, Minnesota. 2009. Conflict of Interest Policy. Definitions, 2009 Minnesota Statutes § 16C.02.
Ejka-Ekins, April. 1998. Teaching Ethics in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 48(5): 885 – 891.
Fredrickson, H. George. 2005. Public Ethics and the New Managerialism: An Axiomatic Theory. In Ethics in Public Management, edited by H. George Fredrickson & Richard K. Ghere, 165-183. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Galston, William A. 2007. Civic Knowledge, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Summary of Recent Research. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 623-642.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2002, February 13. Seven in 10 Support New Campaign Finance Legislation. Gallup Politics. Retrieved at http://www.gallup.com/poll/5329/seven-support-new-campaign-finance-legislation.aspx
Jordan, Eason. 2011, November 17. Americans Slam Congress. PollPosition. Retrieved at http://pollposition.com/2011/11/17/82-congress-doesnt-work-for-us/
Kennedy, Sheila S. and David Schultz. 2011. American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Barlett Learning.
Lessig, Lawrence. 2011. Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It. New York, NY: Twelve.
Light, Paul C. 2011. Preface: An Audacious Task. Public Administration Review 71(supp. 1): S5-S6.
Metzger, Gillian E. 2003. Privatization as Delegation. Columbia Law Review 103(6): 1367 – 1502.
NAEP-Civics 2006: The Nation's Report Card. 2006. NAEP-Nation's Report Card Home. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/civics_2006/
National Constitution Center, 1998. Civic Research Results. Retrieved at http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenAction/CivicResearchResults/NCCTeens'Poll.shtml
New Jersey. Prohibition on Business Entity Contributions, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.3 through 20.25 (2005).
Newport, Frank. 2010, June 23. Americans see congress as ineffective, self-serving, entrenched. Gallup Politics. Retrieved at http://www.gallup.com/poll/141008/americans-congress-ineffective-self-serving-entrenched.aspx
Niemi, Richard G. and Jane Junn, J. 1998. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Compliance (OECC). 2000. Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance. Retrieved at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/37/46466287.pdf
Rohr, John A. 1988. Public Service, Ethics and Constitutional Practice. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Rosenbloom, David H., James Carroll and Jonathan Carroll. 2000. Constitutional Competence for Public Managers: Cases and Commentary. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
Scholz, John T. 1984. Voluntary Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement. Law and Policy 6(4): 385 – 404.
Singer, Peter W. 2003. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Smith, Steven R. and Michael Lipsky. 1993. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stahl, Lesley. 2011, November 6. The Lobbyist's Playbook. 60 Minutes. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57319075/jack-abramoff-the-lobbyists-playbook/
Stark, Andrew. 2000. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zanetta, Lisa A. and Guy B. Adams. 2000. In Service of the Leviathan: Democracy, Ethics and the Potential for Administrative Evil in the New Public Management. Administrative Theory & Praxis 22(3): 534 – 554.
← The Politics of Pay Quality of Life →


text:
Лилль-Европа () — второй железнодорожный вокзал Лилля, Франция, введённый в эксплуатацию в 1993 году и предназначенный главным образом для скоростного сообщения.

Через вокзал Лилль-Европа осуществляется скоростное сообщение между Парижем, Лондоном и Брюсселем (компания Eurostar). Возможна посадка и высадка пассажиров поездов Eurostar, здесь же осуществляется как французский, так и британский пограничный контроль.

Кроме этого, через вокзал Лилль Европа проходят скоростные поезда TGV и Thalys, курсирующие в сообщении между Францией, Бельгией, Нидерландами и Германией. Часть поездов Лилль — Париж также отправляется с этого вокзала, хотя основным вокзалом Лилля в этом направлении является вокзал Лилль Фландрия. Два главных вокзала Лилля находятся примерно в пяти минутах ходьбы друг от друга.

См. также
 Лилль Фландрия (вокзал)

Примечания

Ссылки
 Timetables TER Nord-Pas-de-Calais

Вокзалы Франции
Транспорт Лилля

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Jose Mourinho: This Summer Signing is Finally Proving His Worth
By Teddy Cutler On 12/9/16 at 4:32 AM EST
Manchester United midfielder Henrikh Mkhitaryan in Odessa, Ukraine, December 8. Mhktaryan's goal sent United through to the UEFA Europa League knockout rounds. Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty
Sports Jose Mourinho Manchester United Premier League Sport
Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho praised summer signing Henrikh Mkhitaryan after the Armenian's goal sent the club through to the UEFA Europa League knockout rounds.
Mkhitaryan's solo 48th-minute effort was his first goal for the club, and sent United on its way to a 2-0 victory over Zorya Luhansk in Odessa, Ukraine.
"He worked really hard physically, tactically and we know the talent is there," Mourinho said.
"He has a strong mentality," Mourinho added. "He was very determined to fight against his difficult adaptation, and he's doing that in the best way.
"He fought to improve tactically, he fought to improve physically, and now he is playing good in the Premier League, good in the Europa League and the EFL Cup, and now evolving a bit more happiness for him, so I'm very pleased."
Mkhitaryan struggled in his first few months at Old Trafford since moving from German Bundesliga side Borussia Dortmund in the summer for £26 million ($32.7 million). He was taken off at half-time in his first start, the 2-1 Manchester derby defeat to Manchester City on September 10.
Man Utd: Pochettino Has Ominous News for Jose Mourinho
Man Utd: Star Summer Signing Takes Blame for Slow Start

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


When you want to meet Russian singles, your first idea on how to meet them is to immediately book a plane ticket to Russia. Admit it. Everyone has thought about that. But in this century, you don't have to travel thousands of miles to meet beautiful Russian women and date them.
Russian dating sites like TrulyRussian gives single men the chance to meet and interact with Russian women not just in Russia, but all over the world while in the comfort of their homes.
Equipped with features specifically for dating, you don't have to worry about not meeting genuine people because you're using a dating platform. You've got everything you'll need for dating. How you use these features to attract and charm Russian ladies entirely depends on you.
Just like any other dating sites, you can also customize your own profile at TrulyRussian where you have your basic information, match preferences, photos, lifestyle preferences, appearance description, and bio.
Fill up this necessary information and let them know who you are.
Though this might look simple enough to look at, this could be quite challenging especially when you're trying to impress Russian girls and personals. From your profile, you've got to show that you're confident. Russian women like men who are sure of themselves and are never insecure.
Also, don't forget to tell who you are looking for. Are you interested only in meeting singles from ages 30 to 45 or 20 to 29? Or are you looking for Russian ladies who are interested in friendships and penpals? Don't be ashamed of admitting your match preferences.
With thousands of profiles and online daters, it will be time-consuming to filter out through every member's profile and album. So make your life easier and filter members based on your likes and preferences with TrulyRussian's Advanced Search.
You can also search profiles using Browse Members. This is good if you just want to look at profiles or Russian singles and personals who are currently active.
Another is the Member Search. When you're looking for a very specific member, it is highly recommended that you use this.
Now that you know what to do in your profile and how to search for your ideal Russian lady, let's now move on to how are you going to grab her attention and open up your first conversation.
Russian women prefer men who are straightforward and takes the initiative to take control of the conversation. So you've got to make sure that your communication won't dwindle into byes and farewells. But along with being frank, you must also not forget to be a gentleman.
Now you know how easy it is to meet singles and build relationships with TrulyRussian, what are you waiting for? Create your account for free today and meet your Russian beauty.
How to Tell a Girl You're Not into Her?!


text:
"Promising Young Woman" begins with a few bros, all of whom undoubtedly read "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013) as a Hero's Journey, talking. Eventually they notice a young woman, Cassie (Carey Mulligan), across the way, alone and inebriated. One bro (Adam Brody) offers to take her home, by which he means his home, where he proceeds to get her in bed, undressing her. The camera switches to a shot from above. Cassie is now looking right at us. "Hey," she says. It's jarring in the best way. If scenes like this frequently veer toward abhorrent voyeurism, protecting us from feeling the true implications by maintaining a convenient It's Just A Movie separation, Cassie is quietly bludgeoning through the fourth wall, not inviting us in so much as demanding we enter, refusing to let us - you, me, men - off the hook. What do you think about this? she is saying, more or less. If you were here, what would you do? Seeming to suspect we would do nothing, she takes matter into her own hands, though director Emerald Fennell cuts away before we see precisely what. The scene switches to the next morning, Cassie striding down the street in the manner of an action hero, staring down some catcalling construction workers, causing them to spew sexist vitriol instead, turning that old Jerry Seinfeld joke about men yelling at women from construction sites inside-out. This is the world, in other words, in which Cassie exists, surrounded by men who want her to smile or go the fuck away. And though there are moments when you might wonder if "Promising Young Woman" might have examined America's ubiquitous sexual assault problem with more nuance, Fennell recognizes that because the scales of justice have tipped so far out of whack, such aesthetic and narrative modulation would be a lie.
Thirty years old and still living at home, Cassie is cocooned in the adolescence she refuses to leave by Fennell's bright color schemes while frames typically wall her off from her parents (Jennifer Coolidge and Clancy Brown) even when they are in the same room. This is not standard arrested development, though, as "Promising Young Woman" gradually makes clear, but something more insidious, the long-term affects of her best friend, Nina, never seen, having been sexually assaulted when they were in medical school together. It is implied that Nina took her own life and Cassie has taken it upon herself not so much to right the wrong in the name of a justice system that failed her friend as ensure no more wrongs are committed, posing as drunk night-after-night to be picked up by dishonest men and then turn the tables. Though we eventually learn Cassie does not commit murder, Fennell nevertheless briefly leaves that possibility dangling, not for a cheap thrill but to force us to see through the looking glass the other way, like a woman who wakes up the morning after and wonders what happened.
If Cassie is stuck in the past then it only makes sense that a past figure, Ryan (Bo Burnham), would help (try to) bring her into the present, entering the coffee shop where she works by chance and kinda, sorta re-meeting cute. After a few dumb statements, he jokingly asks Cassie to spit in his coffee, which she does, Mulligan playing the moment not with a "hey, why not" but an "of course, totally." If it's funny, it is also Ryan essentially acknowledging his inherent male dumbness, a kind of offering that he can he trusted. Cassie might still be initially wary, but she comes around, Mulligan and Burnham demonstrating a solid yin/yang kind chemistry in her terseness and his penchant for patter. Their burgeoning love culminates in a bubbly montage, not so much subverting the trope as surrendering to it, allowing Cassie to indulge in the fantasy before demonstrating that's all it is with mid-movie revelations that send her back down the path of ultimate vengeance.
Mulligan is sensational. She deploys her vocal fry like a weapon, less aggressive than cunning. When Ryan wonders if Cassie is okay, starting his sentence with a traditional "You seem", the way she cuts him off with an "I seem what?" feels like a sly condemnation of every male emotional diagnosis for all time. When another male character dusts off the stereotypical, standardized complaint that Cassie is insane, she replies "I honestly don't think I am", Fennell disappointingly literalizing what Mulligan's performance lives out, a manifestation of brutal reason in a dishonest world that wants her to believe she's crazy. A pair of scenes with a former classmate (Alison Brie) are key to Nina's justice but also present Cassie's opposite. Whereas Brie is hanging on by a thread, on the verge of exploding from the emotion her character has tamped down, Mulligan is a picture of stone cold clarity.
Cassie's quest innately raises the question of whether retribution and redemption in the face of something so awful can ever truly be achieved and in a crucial scene, Nina's mom (Molly Shannon), counseling Cassie to move on, suggests they are not. That would also seem to suggest the knotty conclusion, not to be revealed, has its cake and eats it too. But in navigating the system that let her friend down, what Cassie uncovers is that such moral grey areas are precisely what allow people, bad actors or something more nebulous, to skate away free or eschew remorse. Rather than straddling the fence, like it or not, "Promising Young Woman" paints the world as good or bad, black or white.
Labels: A Promising Young Woman, Good Reviews


These two people hold a special place in our hearts for many reasons -- one, we've known the bride since childhood (and we knew we loved Aliki the second we met him), two, they're absolute sweethearts, and three, they were the first clients to completely trust us with their wedding. Alex came to us saying, "I'm not picky at all, and I like a vintage garden theme" and the rest is history.
The hunt was on to find the perfect items to help bring the theme to life. We spent days pouring through antique shops, farms, and ranches to find fabrics, watering cans, and baskets to help create the secret garden. Ivory, Lace and Sage Green coupled with wildflowers and copper accents were our core design elements.
The day itself was perfect - it was a warm beautiful day in Monterey and the Perry House was the perfect setting for Alex and Aliki's special day. Its old charm and beautiful gardens housed an amazing celebration, that I often still daydream about -- it was perfect.
Alex stunned with a breathtaking Watters gown, baby's breath floral crown, and a beautiful wildflower bouquet. Aliki maintained his cool personality with his Converse while still looking stunning in his suit with Reef (their precious son and ringbearer) not far behind. The ceremony was heartfelt, the reception was genuinely fun, and dessert was the icing on the cake -- the donuts were a fan favorite!


text:
Search for updates
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan - Report of the Secretary-General (A/74/357) [EN/AR]
UN GA
Summary The present report, prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/98, provides an update on Israeli settlement activities and their impact on human rights in the West Bank, including...
Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem - Report of the Secretary-General (A/74/468) [EN/AR]
Summary The present report has been prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/99. It focuses on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian...
Taking Up Second Committee Reports, General Assembly Adopts 47 Resolutions, including Texts to Combat Protectionism, Unilateral Economic Measures
GA/12233 GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLENARY SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION, 52ND MEETING (AM) As waning multilateralism and burgeoning inequalities threaten to side-track the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,...
Delegates in Fifth Committee Endorse $20 Million Budget Proposal for Special Political Mission in Haiti
GA/AB/4346 SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION, 17TH MEETING (AM) 16 DECEMBER 2019 Delegates in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today backed the full 2020 funding of the United Nations...
Decolonization, Middle East Matters in Focus as General Assembly Adopts 38 Draft Resolutions, Decisions upon Recommendation of Fourth Committee
GA/12228 GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLENARY SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION, 47TH MEETING (AM) Upon the recommendation of its Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), the General Assembly adopted 35...
The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security - Report of the Secretary-General (A/74/582–S/2019/935)
I. Introduction The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 68/11 and Security Council resolution 2489 (2019), in which the Secretary-General was requested to report...
General Assembly adopts 5 resolutions on Middle East, including text urging States not to recognize changes on status of Jerusalem, pre-1967 borders
GA/12220 GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLENARY SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION, 37TH & 38TH MEETINGS (AM & PM) The General Assembly today adopted five resolutions on the question of Palestine and the Middle East,...
Situación de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño: Informe del Secretario General (A/74/231)
Resumen El presente informe se centra en la aplicación de las cuestiones prioritarias que figuran en las resoluciones tituladas "Derechos del niño", aprobadas por la Asamblea General en sus períodos...
État de la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant : Rapport du Secrétaire général (A/74/231)
Résumé Le présent rapport s'intéresse à la suite donnée aux questions prioritaires visées dans la résolution intitulée « Droits de l'enfant », adoptée par l'Assemblée générale à ses soixante-neuvième...
Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - Report of the Secretary-General (A/74/231) [EN/AR/RU/ZH]
Summary The present report focuses on the implementation of the priority themes of the resolutions entitled "Rights of the child" adopted by the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth to seventy-third...
Showing 1 - 10 of 3,655 updates
Navigate list


text:
Should Drake Be Producing the Posthumous Aaliyah Album?
by Amos Barshad
On Sunday, via his blog, Drake released "Enough Said," a track credited to Aaliyah. Drake has long been publicly obsessed with the R&B icon, who died in a plane crash in 2001: He samples her; he gets her face tattooed on his back; he writes her letters in which he promises to buy her dinner if they ever meet. But now Drake may be ticking his devotion up a notch. Last week HipHopDX reported that Drake would be executive-producing a new posthumous Aaliyah album, and that a new Aaliyah single featuring Drake would be premiered on August 5, the day of Drake's OVO Festival. And while Drake has yet to confirm the album plans — the closest he's come is telling Tim Westwood, "I have some great Aaliyah news coming soon" — the single has indeed appeared.
It's unclear if or when an official confirmation is coming, but it's probably now safe to assume this Drake/Aaliyah album is going to happen. Drake would need some sort of relationship with the administrators of the Aaliyah estate to get his hands on unreleased material. And as MissInfo points out, that seems to be the case: "[N]otice in the left corner [of the single art]….that Blackground logo? That's the imprint run by Aaliyah's uncle and cousin (Barry and Jomo Hankerson). So that's who's green lighting this project." OK, so now that we're all assuming Drake is indeed executive-producing a posthumous Aaliyah album, guess what time it is? It's time to get super-psyched or super-pissed off that Drake is executive producing a posthumous Aaliyah album!
On the latter side we have:
• Anyone who thinks all posthumous albums are bullshit
• Anyone who thinks Aaliyah's catalog is sacred and shouldn't be trifled with by anyone, multi-platinum recording artist or otherwise
• Anyone who thinks Drake, in particular, isn't the man for the job
• Timbaland, who has said when asked about the project, "I know they trying to drop some Aaliyah records, but if he do it, it should be with me and Missy [Elliott]. The proper way for him to do that would be for me, him and Missy to be all on the record. But to put it on his record, would just not be right."
You can't really argue with the first two groupings. Yes, posthumous albums are kind of bullshit. If the artist in question wanted to release a bunch of demos and unfinished tracks, he/she would have released a bunch of demos and unfinished tracks. And yes, Aaliyah — revered even before dying at the tragically young age of 22 — shouldn't have her catalog trifled with. But that doesn't mean, thanks to the commercial considerations involved, that trifling of this sort isn't inevitable. After all, if this Drake project does happen, it would be the second posthumous Aaliyah album, following 2002's I Care 4 U.
Which brings us to the lack of Timbaland, and the problem of Drake. Timbaland was an equal partner in crafting the Aaliyah sound, but has long since lost his touch. He should certainly be consulted and involved in some way, but would it be that crazy to hand over the reins of the operation to a younger, hungrier artist, one in his prime? By the way, it should be noted that Toronto's finest wouldn't technically be producing the thing himself. Most likely, the man twiddling the knobs would be 40, Drake's longtime producer and the guy behind "Enough Said." Not that that'll calm down the Drake detractors: Drake and 40 are the creators of The Drake Sound — the half-singing/half-rapping skeletal confessionalism — and the fear is that the duo will be Drake-ifying Aaliyah. If you like Drake, that's maybe not so bad? If you don't, it's goddamn blasphemy.
This is a touchy subject for Aaliyah's rightly obsessed fans, and any defense of Drake here is presumptive. We can guess that Drake, who is one of those obsessed fans, will have enough respect for Aaliyah's inimitable sound not to swap it out for his own. We can guess that Drake won't be, as he is on "Enough Said" (to the consternation of some), rapping about how he's sad he's rich on every track of this new album. Mostly, though, we can wait and see how this turns out.
Filed Under: Drake, Music News, Timbaland
Amos Barshad has written for New York Magazine, Spin, GQ, XXL, and the Arkansas Times. He is a staff writer for Grantland.
Archive @ AmosBarshad
More From Amos Barshad
More Drake
More Hollywood Prospectus
We Went There: Blur Finally Makes It to Madison Square Garden October 26, 2015
We Went There: Jay Z and Tidal Bring Beyoncé and Friends to Barclays Center October 21, 2015
A Homecoming for Astronaut Jones: Tracy Morgan Returns to 'SNL' October 19, 2015
'The Facts Are the Least You Can Rely On': Director Danny Boyle Talks 'Steve Jobs' October 12, 2015
A Killer Trump, Miley's Dead Petz, and Hillary Two-Times: Your 'SNL' Season Premiere Check-in October 5, 2015
See all from Amos Barshad
DRAKE DANCE REVOLUTION: The 'Hotline Bling' Video October 20, 2015
Drake, Bruce Springsteen, and the Secret to Great Driving Songs October 6, 2015
Fetty Wap's Charming, Impossible-to-Dismiss 'Fetty Wap,' in Six Notes September 28, 2015
'Hollywood Prospectus Podcast': The Emmys, Ryan Adams's '1989' Cover, and the Future/Drake Joint Mixtape September 22, 2015
A Note on 'Jumpman' by Metro Boomin ft. Drake and Future September 22, 2015
See all Drake
Brand Echh: Sandra Bullock and Billy Bob Thornton Can't Save the Lame 'Our Brand Is Crisis' October 30, 2015
In Praise of Beach Slang, 2015's Best, Most Sincere Rock Band October 29, 2015
Who Was Missing From Taylor Swift's Miami Squad? October 29, 2015
Happy 'Halloween': The Best Horror-Movie Monsters October 29, 2015
See all Hollywood Prospectus
Breaking Bad, Season 5, Episode 4: 'Fifty-One'
True Blood Season 5, Episode 9: 'Everybody Wants to Rule the World'
The And Greenwald Podcast – Aya Cash
The Andy Greenwald Podcast – 'Fargo' Showrunner Noah Hawley
Grantland Pop Culture – Aaron Sorkin


The purpose ouf this ministry is to enable men to grow in their relationship with God, His Son and the Holy Spirit based on the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Encourage men to increase their prayer lives and promote spiritual fellowship and brotherhood among men of the Church. Encourage heartfelt, spirited and lively discussion of scripture in an open and humble setting.
All are adult men who are striving to increase their faith, love and knowledge of God through the Catholic Church's teaching and perceptive.
Men's Bible study has no firm time commitment. Meetings are held every Tuesdays from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. in the Parish Center. Men are welcome to come both regularly or as their schedule permits.
The main activity of Men's Bible study is scripture based lessons. Lessons typically follow a predefined lesson plan that can be found online. Previous topics have included Salvation History, The Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Lively Virtues by Fr. Barron, The Gospel According to Luke, and Apologetics/Defending the Faith, Lessons are led by volunteer facilitators and discussion is openly encouraged to ensure that the knowledge of the entire group is utilized to further everyone's understanding.