HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011_05-12 Collins_Framework for considering electedand appointed officesUMASS
BOSTON
EDWARD J. COLLINS, JR. CENTER FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
JOHN W. McCORMACK GRADUATE SCHOOL OF POLICY AND GLOBAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON
100 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125-3393
P: 617.287.4824
F: 617.287.5566
mccormac k.0 mb.edu/centers/cpm
collins.center@umb.edu
Framework for considering elected and appointed offices
Rev 05.12.11
Below are eight criteria supporting a position or board being elected and eight criteria supporting one
being appointed. The criteria are essentially opposites of each other. Where one increases, the other
decreases, and vice -versa.
Note that few if any positions or boards will fall entirely in one column or another, and most will fall in
the middle on some criteria. The general purpose of this list is to provide a framework for discussing
each position or board on its own terms and deciding what is the best fit for the particular community.
Criteria supporting a position or board being
***ELECTED***
Criteria supporting a position or board being
***APPOINTED***
1.
It has significant policy -making responsibility.
1.
It has minimal policy -making responsibility.
2.
It has few ministerial responsibilities and
tasks whose performance is guided almost
entirely by statute.
2.
It has many ministerial responsibilities and
tasks whose performance is guided almost
entirely by statute.
3.
Someone with little training or expertise in its
area of work could quickly and easily become
effective in the work.
3.
Someone with little training or expertise in its
area of work would have significant difficulty
in performing the work effectively,
potentially creating significant risks for the
community.
4.
Its role and tasks are easily and widely
understood by the public.
4.
Its role and tasks are complicated and NOT
easily and widely understood by the public.
5.
The nature of the position or board's role
makes it relatively simple for the public to
evaluate the performance of its non -policy-
making duties (for example, efficient use of
resources, etc.).
5.
The nature of the position or board's role
makes it relatively difficult for the public to
evaluate the performance of its non -policy -
making duties (for example, efficient use of
resources, etc.).
6.
The position or board is helpful as a check or
balance against another center of power in
the community.
6.
The position or board is not needed as a
check or balance against another center of
power in the community.
7.
It is not critical to the effective and efficient
functioning of the government for this
position or board to cooperate regularly with
other officials.
7.
It is critical to the effective and efficient
functioning of the government for this
position or board to cooperate regularly with
other officials.
8.
In the particular community in question,
election for the position historically produces
a very competitive race between highly-
qualified candidates.
8.
In the particular community in question,
election for the position historically produces
little or no competition and few or no highly -
qualified candidates.