University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

(USC Thesis Other)

A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A FRAMEWORK FOR GOOD LOCAL GOVERNANCE:

ACHIEVING PROSPERITY IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT

by

Michael D. Falkow

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Michael D. Falkow
ii
Epigraph
“Man’s flight through life is sustained
by the power of his knowledge.”

This quotation by Austin ‘Dusty’ Miller is etched on the
Eagle and Fledglings bronze sculpture created by Carl C. Mose
(1903-1973)
1
located at the United States Air Force Academy in
Colorado Springs, Colorado.
2
These enduring words provide
context to man’s often insatiable desire to learn. His thirst for
knowledge has led to breakthroughs in human ingenuity and
subsequent advancements of the species that no other living
creature on this planet can equal.

1
https://siris-
artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&uri=full=3100001~!329788~!0#focus
2
https://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000182693/
Eagle and Fledglings statue
(U.S. Air Force photo)
iii
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my beloved wife, Janice Yae Falkow, of blessed memory (1960-
2018). Sadly, she is not able to join me by my side to celebrate this wonderous accomplishment.
Janice knew how much I wanted to earn a doctorate, and she supported me every step of the way
until she lost her courageous battle against breast cancer halfway through my journey on June 4,
2018. Her love and devotion remain forever etched in my heart—this is for you my love.
I also dedicate this work to our beautiful and inspiring daughter, Mikayla Danielle
Falkow. You were forced to grow up quicker than most, yet you found the strength and
determination to not only honor your promise to mom and finish your undergraduate degree at
“the other school” (UCLA Class of 2019) but also help your dad stay on track. You carry mom’s
sparkle in your eyes and her love in your heart—thank you for being such a strong and caring
young woman; I hope I have inspired you to love life and love learning. Best wishes for
continued academic success at Chapman University this Fall, as you begin your pursuit of a
graduate degree in marriage and family therapy.
iv
Acknowledgements
This work is the culmination of an extraordinary flight with multiple waypoints, course
corrections, and layovers. Like the sophisticated aircraft man has imagined, designed, and built
over the century, there is a team of people who collectively make them fly. This doctoral voyage
would not have been possible without the gracious and abundant advice, guidance, counsel, and
motivation of my adviser, mentor, and dissertation chair—Frank Zerunyan. Mayor, professor,
and attorney Zerunyan’s consistently positive influence and tireless efforts made this product
possible—thank you for always believing in me!
Along with Frank, I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Ali Abbas, Ph.D. and
William Resh, Ph.D., each of whom provided direction and support making this dissertation the
best it could be. Special thanks goes to Director of the Professional Doctorate and Professor of
Governance, Management and the Policy Process, Deborah Natoli, Ph.D., who always played an
eloquent, passionate, and highly influential role during my entire doctoral journey—thank you
for being such a wonderful, caring, and truly inspirational person.
Finally, I am truly grateful to all the mayors, vice-mayors, mayor pro tempores,
supervisors, council members, and city managers who voluntarily participated in my research
and shared their knowledge, expertise, insight, and perspective into municipal governance.
Without all of you, I would have nothing but thoughts and opinions—your lived experiences
brought these viewpoints to life. I am truly honored to have spent time with each of you and
humbled by your collective passion for public service and your constant pursuit of good
governance—thank you for your service above self and for being so instrumental to my research.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Epigraph .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ xiv
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
The Starting Point ................................................................................................... 2
Frameworks, Models, and Theories ........................................................................ 5
An “Organic Framework” ....................................................................................... 6
Need for Government and Public Policies .............................................................. 6
The Complexity of Public Policies ......................................................................... 7
Importance of Governance .................................................................................... 11
The Complexity of Policy Implementation ........................................................... 12
Moral and Ethical Complexity .............................................................................. 15
Operational Definitions ............................................................................. 16
Connecting Ethics to Governance ............................................................. 20
Public Administration ............................................................................... 21
Political Intelligence and Civic Engagement ............................................ 22
The Complex Environment of Governance .......................................................... 25
Primary and Secondary Research Questions ........................................................ 26
Purpose Statement ................................................................................................. 26
Research Design .................................................................................................... 28
Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 31
Governance and Complexity ................................................................................. 32
Frameworks........................................................................................................... 36
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 37
Civic Engagement, Oversight, and Influence ....................................................... 39
Characteristics of California Municipal Governments ......................................... 41
The Need for an Analytical Framework ............................................................... 47
Chapter 3: Defining the Analytical Framework ........................................................................... 48
Main Building Blocks ........................................................................................... 51
Values and Ethics Subcomponents ....................................................................... 54
Transformational Leadership Subcomponents ..................................................... 56
Innovation and Co-creation Subcomponents ........................................................ 58
vi
Strategic Planning Subcomponents....................................................................... 60
Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance ............... 62
Linkages ................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter 4: Methodology .............................................................................................................. 64
Methodology and Methods ................................................................................... 64
Qualitative Interviewing ....................................................................................... 66
Interview Plan ....................................................................................................... 68
Sample City Selection ........................................................................................... 72
Represented Sample of California Cities .............................................................. 78
Chapter 5: Analysis and Findings ................................................................................................ 82
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 83
Interview Design Analysis .................................................................................... 85
Interview Duration .................................................................................... 85
Interview Tool ........................................................................................... 86
Sample City and Participant Analysis ................................................................... 95
Population Quantiles ................................................................................. 96
Participant Analysis ................................................................................ 103
Out-of-State Jurisdictions ....................................................................... 103
Strengths and Limitations ....................................................................... 105
Study Findings .................................................................................................... 109
Question 1 ............................................................................................... 109
Question 2 ............................................................................................... 117
Question 3 ............................................................................................... 120
Question 4 ............................................................................................... 149
Question 5 ............................................................................................... 152
Question 6 ............................................................................................... 156
Question 7 ............................................................................................... 159
Question 8 ............................................................................................... 162
Interpretations ..................................................................................................... 169
Chapter 6: Conclusion................................................................................................................ 171
Summary ............................................................................................................. 171
What It Means ..................................................................................................... 174
Theoretical Knowledge Value and Practical Knowledge Value ......................... 181
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 182
Possible Areas of Future Research ..................................................................... 183
References ................................................................................................................................... 185
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 190
Appendix A: USC IRB Informed Consent for Research ................................... 191
Appendix B: Interview PowerPoint Shown to Participants via Zoom .............. 197
Appendix C: Interview Worksheet .................................................................... 219
Appendix D: Incorporated California Cities by Population Quantiles .............. 236
Appendix E: Representative Sample of the 38 California Cities ....................... 243
vii
Appendix F: Cities Outside of California .......................................................... 244
Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities ......................................... 245
Agoura Hills, California.......................................................................... 246
Anaheim, California ................................................................................ 247
Arcadia, California .................................................................................. 248
Artesia, California ................................................................................... 249
Avalon, California................................................................................... 250
Bell, California ........................................................................................ 251
Bellflower, California ............................................................................. 252
Bradbury, California ............................................................................... 253
Burbank, California................................................................................. 254
Calabasas, California .............................................................................. 255
Downey, California ................................................................................. 256
El Segundo, California ............................................................................ 257
Hidden Hills, California .......................................................................... 258
Indian Wells, California .......................................................................... 259
La Cañada Flintridge, California ............................................................ 260
Lakewood, California ............................................................................. 261
Lomita, California ................................................................................... 262
Long Beach, California ........................................................................... 263
Los Angeles, California .......................................................................... 264
Lynwood, California ............................................................................... 265
Malibu, California ................................................................................... 266
Manhattan Beach, California .................................................................. 267
Monrovia, California ............................................................................... 268
Palos Verdes Estates, California ............................................................. 269
Pico Rivera, California............................................................................ 270
Pismo Beach, California ......................................................................... 271
Rancho Palos Verdes, California ............................................................ 272
Rolling Hills, California.......................................................................... 273
Rolling Hills Estates, California ............................................................. 274
Rosemead, California .............................................................................. 275
San Francisco, California ........................................................................ 276
San Marino, California............................................................................ 277
Sesser, Illinois ......................................................................................... 278
Sierra Madre, California ......................................................................... 279
South Gate, California ............................................................................ 280
Villa Park, California .............................................................................. 281
Walnut, California................................................................................... 282
West Hollywood, California ................................................................... 283
Westlake Village, California ................................................................... 284
Willoughby, Ohio ................................................................................... 285
Appendix H: Sample Email Invitation to Participate ........................................ 287
Appendix I: Additional Graphical Analyses of Frequency Distributions .......... 288
Values and Ethics Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ........................... 289
Transformational Leadership Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings .......... 290
viii
Innovation and Co-creation Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ............ 291
Strategic Planning Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ........................... 292
Comparisons Between California Policymakers and City Managers ..... 293
Appendix J: Raw Ranking Data ......................................................................... 297

ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of California Municipal Governments ................................................... 42
Table 2. California Cities Population Quantiles Using Equal Count Method .............................. 97
Table 3. Quantile-Based Average Population of Sample Cities ................................................... 97
Table 4. High-Level Breakdown of California Participants ....................................................... 103
Table 5. Jurisdictions Outside California .................................................................................... 104
Table 6. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ..................................................... 110
Table 7. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ..................................................... 111
Table 8. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ..................................................... 112
Table 9. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ..................................................... 113
Table 10. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ................................................... 115
Table 11. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ................................................... 116
Table 12. Question 1 Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............................................... 116
Table 13. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 117
Table 14. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 117
Table 15. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 118
Table 16. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 118
Table 17. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 119
Table 18. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 120
Table 19. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 120
Table 20. Ranking of #1 Subcomponents in a "1" to "4" ........................................................... 130
Table 21. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 149
Table 22. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 150
Table 23. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 150
Table 24. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 151
Table 25. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 151
Table 26. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 152
Table 27. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 152
Table 28. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 153
Table 29. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 153
Table 30. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 154
Table 31. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 154
Table 32. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 155
Table 33. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 155
Table 34. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 156
Table 35. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 156
Table 36. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 157
Table 37. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 157
Table 38. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 158
Table 39. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 158
Table 40. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 159
Table 41. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 159
Table 42. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 160
Table 43. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 160
Table 44. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 160
x
Table 45. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 161
Table 46. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 161
Table 47. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 161
Table 48. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 162
Table 49. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants ............... 163
Table 50. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants ............... 164
Table 51. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants ............... 165
Table 52. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants ............... 166
Table 53. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants ............... 167
Table 54. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants ............... 168
Table 55. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants ............ 169
Table 56. U.S. Census Bureau 2018 American Community Survey Links ................................ 286

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Research Approach Continuum ..................................................................................... 28
Figure 2. Literary Sources as a Venn Diagram ............................................................................. 32
Figure 3. Graphic Equalizer Representation ................................................................................. 52
Figure 4. Main Blocks of the Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance ........... 52
Figure 5. Core Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance .................................. 53
Figure 6. Graphic equalizer divided into four (4) sections ........................................................... 54
Figure 7. Values and Ethics Building Building Block .................................................................. 54
Figure 8. Transformational Leadership Building Block ............................................................... 56
Figure 9. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block.................................................................. 58
Figure 10. Strategic Planning Building Block .............................................................................. 60
Figure 11. Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance ...................... 62
Figure 12. Zoom Interview Video Example ................................................................................. 72
Figure 13. California Incorporated Cities Using Six Population Quantiles .................................. 73
Figure 14. California Population Distribution from Smallest to Largest...................................... 96
Figure 15. Quantile 1 Map (6 Cities) ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 16. Quantile 2 Map (7 Cities) ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 17. Quantile 3 Map (6 Cities) .......................................................................................... 100
Figure 18. Quantile 4 Map (6 Cities) .......................................................................................... 100
Figure 19. Quantile 5 Map (6 Cities) .......................................................................................... 101
Figure 20. Quantile 6 Map-A (5 Cities) ...................................................................................... 101
Figure 21. Quantile 6 Map-B (2 Cities) ...................................................................................... 102
Figure 22. Map of the City of Sesser, Illinois ............................................................................. 104
Figure 23. Map of the City of Willoughby, Ohio ....................................................................... 105
Figure 24. Frequency Distribution of #1 Rankings .................................................................... 123
Figure 25. Values and Ethics Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings ............................... 124
Figure 26. Transformational Leadership Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings ............. 125
Figure 27. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings ................ 126
Figure 28. Strategic Planning Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings .............................. 127
Figure 29. Tally of #1 Rankings from all 73 California-based Participants ............................... 128
Figure 30. Complete Distribution of all Rankings (73 California Participants) ......................... 129
Figure 31. Values and Ethics Building Block for California Policymakers ............................... 131
Figure 32. Transformational Leadership Building Block for California Policymakers ............. 131
Figure 33. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for California Policymakers ................ 132
Figure 34. Strategic Planning Building Block for California Policymakers .............................. 132
Figure 35. Values and Ethics Building Block for California City Managers ............................. 133
Figure 36. Transformational Leadership Building Block for California City Managers ........... 133
Figure 37. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for California City Managers .............. 134
Figure 38. Strategic Planning Building Block for California Managers .................................... 134
Figure 39. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities ........................................... 135
Figure 40. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities ......................... 136
Figure 41. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities ............................ 136
Figure 42. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities .......................................... 137
Figure 43. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities ........................................... 137
Figure 44. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities ......................... 138
xii
Figure 45. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities ............................ 138
Figure 46. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities .......................................... 139
Figure 47. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities ........................................... 139
Figure 48. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities ......................... 140
Figure 49. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities ............................ 140
Figure 50. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities .......................................... 141
Figure 51. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities ........................................... 141
Figure 52. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities ......................... 142
Figure 53. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities ............................ 142
Figure 54. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities .......................................... 143
Figure 55. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities ........................................... 143
Figure 56. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities ......................... 144
Figure 57. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities ............................ 144
Figure 58. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities .......................................... 145
Figure 59. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities ........................................... 145
Figure 60. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities ......................... 146
Figure 61. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities ............................ 146
Figure 62. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities .......................................... 147
Figure 63. Comparison of Female and Male Frequency Distribution of Rankings .................... 148
Figure 64. Main Blocks of the Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance ....... 175
Figure 65. Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance .................... 176
Figure 66. Tally of #1 Rankings from all 73 California-based Participants ............................... 177
Figure 67. Agoura Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ......................................................... 246
Figure 68. Anaheim, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot................................................................ 247
Figure 69. Arcadia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot.................................................................. 248
Figure 70. Artesia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................... 249
Figure 71. Avalon, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .................................................................. 250
Figure 72. Bell, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ....................................................................... 251
Figure 73. Bellflower, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................. 252
Figure 74. Bradbury, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................... 253
Figure 75. Burbank, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................ 254
Figure 76. Calabasas, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .............................................................. 255
Figure 77. Downey, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................. 256
Figure 78. El Segundo, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................ 257
Figure 79. Hidden Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .......................................................... 258
Figure 80. Indian Wells, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .......................................................... 259
Figure 81. La Cañada Flintridge, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................ 260
Figure 82. Lakewood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................. 261
Figure 83. Lomita, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................... 262
Figure 84. Long Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ........................................................... 263
Figure 85. Los Angeles, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .......................................................... 264
Figure 86. Lynwood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................... 265
Figure 87. Malibu, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................... 266
Figure 88. Manhattan Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .................................................. 267
Figure 89. Monrovia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .............................................................. 268
Figure 90. Palos Verdes Estates, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................. 269
xiii
Figure 91. Pico Rivera, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ........................................................... 270
Figure 92. Pismo Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ......................................................... 271
Figure 93. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................ 272
Figure 94. Rolling Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ......................................................... 273
Figure 95. Rolling Hils Estates, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .............................................. 274
Figure 96. Rosemead, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot.............................................................. 275
Figure 97. San Francisco, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ........................................................ 276
Figure 98. San Marino, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ........................................................... 277
Figure 99. Sesser, IL 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ...................................................................... 278
Figure 100. Sierra Madre, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ....................................................... 279
Figure 101. South Gate, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot .......................................................... 280
Figure 102. Villa Park, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ............................................................ 281
Figure 103. Walnut, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................................ 282
Figure 104. West Hollywood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................. 283
Figure 105. Westlake Village, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ................................................. 284
Figure 106. Willoughby, OH 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot ......................................................... 285
Figure 107. Values and Ethics Frequency Distributions of #1 through #4 Rankings ................. 289
Figure 108. Transformational Leadership Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ........ 290
Figure 109. Innovation and Co-creation Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ........... 291
Figure 110. Strategic Planning Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings ......................... 292
Figure 111. Values and Ethics Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers ...................... 293
Figure 112. Transformational Leadership Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers ..... 294
Figure 113. Innovation and Co-creation Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers ....... 295
Figure 114. Strategic Planning Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers ...................... 296

xiv
Abstract
National and state headlines often take center stage in the media, but municipal or “local”
government is what people see most. Local government touches everything in one’s
community—public safety, infrastructure and transportation, business and economics, quality of
life issues, etc. In California, local jurisdictions focus primarily on city and county governments.
While laws, rules, and regulations traditionally stipulate how governments may operate, the act
of governance is entirely different. Examining the city level specifically, this research endeavor
presents a framework for good local governance, which suggests that the local political and
public administrative processes maximize the public’s interest. Using a well-designed and in-
depth qualitative interviewing technique, which captured the “lived experiences” of 41 elected
policymakers (e.g., city council members and members of the board of supervisors [San
Francisco]) and 32 chief appointed officials (e.g., city managers) across a uniformly
representative sample based upon population of 38 California jurisdictions, an organic
framework for effective and resilient local governance emerged. The framework’s four main
building blocks and 16 subcomponents consider various levels of uniqueness inherent to the six
population quantiles of 80 or 81 cities each used to represent the 482 incorporated jurisdictions
in California. For reference and general comparison purposes, one elected policymaker from
each of two out-of-state local jurisdictions also participated (one in Illinois and one in Ohio)
bringing the total to 75 experts across 40 cities. The detailed analysis found substantial
correlation among responses when grouped within the six population quantiles and when
ungrouped. Deeper assessment examined similarities and differences among elected
policymaker responses versus city manager responses. Included in the findings are summaries of
responses and ideas and recommendations on how to leverage the results of this extensive
evaluation of local governance.
Keywords: Governance, good governance, framework, local government resilience.
xv
Preface
As a high school senior 36 years ago, I had my heart set on attending the United States
Air Force Academy (USAFA) in Colorado Springs, Colorado; I wanted to fly. Despite receiving
a Congressional nomination, I was not able to secure appointment to the Class of 1989. As such,
35 years ago, I came to the University of Southern California (USC) to begin my undergraduate
journey as an aerospace engineering major and Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC) scholarship cadet assigned to Detachment 060.

My narrow vantage point and youthful stubbornness prevented me from truly grasping
the wonderful and humbling opportunity, so I obstinately maintained my pursuit of gaining
appointment to USAFA. In April of 1986, while carelessly stumbling through my second
semester at USC, I was handed my dream and granted an appointment to the USAFA Class of
1990.

Resigning my Air Force ROTC scholarship, I left USC and “started over” at USAFA; I
reported for basic cadet training in July of 1986. Full of excitement and enthusiasm, I walked up
the “Bring Me Men” ramp at the academy; I was a little full of myself at the same time.

Sadly, the institution did what it needed to do. After completing my “doolie”
3
year, and
through every fault of my own, I was academically disenrolled for failing two courses during my
second semester and sent home. It was not due to intellectual incompetence. Rather, I ignored
what the academy and my upper-class cadre tried to teach me and what I so desperately needed
to learn. That stubborn streak had unfittingly transformed itself into a misplaced “never-say-die”
spirit that cost me the one thing I wanted most in life.

After being honorably discharged from the Air Force, I enrolled at California State
University, Fullerton (CSUF) where I enrolled in the two courses I failed at USAFA (earning
high A grades in both subjects). Under the USAFA ex-cadet program, I applied for readmission
while feverishly working toward an undergraduate degree in computer science. Though I
focused on graduating from CSUF at the same time I would have originally graduated from
USAFA (May of 1990), I was willing to return to the academy where I left off (e.g., as a third
class cadet—a sophomore), which would necessitate that I complete three more years of
undergraduate study. Unfortunately, after two attempts to regain admission, I had reached the
age limit and would possess a college degree, both of which eliminated my ability to return—my
dream of serving as a U.S. Air Force officer and pilot was gone.

For more than a quarter of a century, this self-created tragedy haunted me. Rather than
accept defeat created by the hefty psychological burden, however, I chose to use this
disappointment to make me stronger like weightlifters use heavy weights to build muscle; the
failure drove me. I earned a master’s degree in computer science while working fulltime after I
finished my bachelor’s degree, and I worked very hard in the private sector constantly trying to
prove my worth—more to myself than anyone else—attempting to make good on my failure.

3
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/doolie
xvi
After 15 years of progressive work experience, in August of 2003, I joined the public
sector when I accepted a position with the City of Inglewood as an information technology
manager. Less than two years later, in 2005, the city council appointed me director of
information technology and communications. Then, two years after that, the city council
appointed me acting assistant city manager after the permanent assistant city manager resigned to
accept a more prominent position at a neighboring city.

With no public administration education, background, or experience, a young executive
computer scientist found himself thrust into the heart of municipal government. Armed only
with deep-seated problem solving skills, excellent communicative ability, a propensity to learn
quickly and efficiently, and a commitment to do a great job, I would spend the next 12 years of
my career managing virtually every department in the city, serving as acting city manager for
more than two months soon after being appointed acting assistant city manager (a “double acting
appointment”) at one point with no assistant city managers to lean on, developing solutions that
ultimately averted insolvency, and even spending nearly three years as a volunteer reserve police
officer after graduating from the Los Angeles Police Department Reserve Academy.

I owe the City of Inglewood, its elected and appointed officials, the staff, and citizens of
that wonderful city a great deal, as they gave me the opportunity to grow, learn, and ultimately
evolve into a strong and seasoned public administrator. For 15 years, I worked for more than a
dozen different elected policymakers and other elected officials who at times taxed my resolve to
the core and at other times gave me precious opportunities to exercise my critical thinking and
solutions-development skills to the fullest. During my tenure with the city, I reported to seven
city managers, three of whom I trained. Collectively, their support, guidance, and respect
allowed us to accomplish so much. It was an incredible journey that in totality gave me a full
range of perspectives into local governance, leading to this dissertation. It should be noted that I
intentionally did not use the City of Inglewood as a sample city to avoid any actual or perceived
bias given I worked so closely with the current elected policymakers and city manager.

When we look at the three levels of government in the United States (e.g., federal, state,
and local), it is the local level that most people see and touch on a day-to-day basis. As one
mayor told me, “my constituents see me in the grocery store, at the park, or walking my dog; I
have to be ready all the time to engage with them on issues they care about.” Similarly, a city
councilman of a very large jurisdiction suggested that most of his constituents only care about
“the 75 feet in front of their house” and do not think a lot about the bigger picture “stuff” that
goes on in the city. This level of interconnectivity does not translate well at the state or federal
level despite national headlines that constantly underscore issues in those domains. It is the local
point of view that usually means the most to a community; for them, it is where government
happens. This is sadly true when regional headlines frequently report undesirable situations at
the local levels of governance, such as significant missteps of management, severe conflicts of
interest, misuse or misappropriation of public funds, abuses of power, and everything in
between.

As such, I set out to create a framework that defines good governance at the local level.
The goal was to define the building blocks and create a foundation for a checklist or primer that
could be used by local government elected officials, appointed officials, public administrators,
xvii
and even civically engaged community members who wish to be involved in the process of
governance. With the extensive input from 73 elected and appointed city leaders across 38
California municipalities as well as two elected policymakers from two out-of-state local
jurisdictions (75 experts from 40 cities in total), I am confident I accomplished my mission.

Final Note:

In August of 2016, I returned to the campus I left 30 years before, and I knew I had
unfinished business to complete. As I now prepare to leave this prestigious university as a
doctoral graduate, I can look back and say with reverence and humility that I made good on all of
it. Thank you, USC, for taking me back and letting me finish something I started more than
three decades ago. Once a Trojan, always a Trojan! Fight on!

August 29, 2020 Michael D. Falkow

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
As an academic discipline, public administration broadly represents the study of
government policies, their design, implementation, and management. President Woodrow
Wilson said, “Public Administration is detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every
particular application of general law is an act of administration” (1887, p. 212). The structures,
interconnectedness, and politics of agencies tasked with public administration are core to
governmental function. Done well or not, public administration, as scholars have pointed out, is
how policy (or politics) transforms what the citizenry sees on a day-to-day basis. The
intersection of theory and practice creates a space for academicians and experienced practitioners
to further develop and promote the discipline. It also provides for the advancement of the
practice by creating opportunities to dissect problems inherent to public agencies and to present
worthwhile and valuable solutions for implementation. The subject areas are vast and
continually evolving; standard topics such as budgeting and financial management,
organizational behavior and personnel, and planning and policymaking are now intertwined with
transparency and accountability in terms of ethics, transformational leadership and collaborative
governance, civic engagement and sustainability, and social responsibility and organizational
dynamics. Adding to the complexity are the impacts of rapid technology growth in terms of
automation, artificial intelligence, and social media, as well as continued societal divisiveness,
polarizing politics and the antagonizing media enterprise, proverbial “fake news,” and
generational advancement that often moves more swiftly than corresponding growth and
maturity in terms of emotional intelligence and rational decision making. All these elements
combine to create more difficulty in finding the right mixture to attain continual balance and
harmony. For local government, specifically in public administration and public policy,
2
achieving prosperity in this increasingly complex environment is not only critical but also a
necessity.
It is vital to begin by establishing a solid definition of governance. The Commission on
Global Governance in their report, Our Global Neighbourhood, defines governance as
the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage
their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or
diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It
includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as
well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or
perceive to be in their interest (1995, pp. 2-3).

With this in mind, Keping (2017) suggests that “the purpose of governance is to guide, steer and
regulate citizen’s activities through the power of different systems and relations so as to
maximize the public interest” (p. 3). At the local level, governance focuses on political and
public administrative processes and the management of public resources for the betterment of the
citizens of that jurisdiction. Thus, to have good local governance suggests that the local political
and public administrative processes must maximize the public’s interest. Now armed with a
sound definition of good local governance, the use of a recently defined term, prosplexity, can
refer to “prosperity in a complex environment” (Falkow, 2013, p. 48). Thus, this research
endeavor seeks to establish a framework for good local governance that will achieve prosplexity.
The Starting Point
The best way to begin a study, an evaluation, or in-depth research is to observe the topic
from afar. In contemporary societies, the colloquial expression, ‘a view from 30,000 feet’
suggests that a passenger on an aircraft cruising 30,000 feet above the ground on a relatively
clear day can see a broader perspective or “bigger picture” of the area below than a person who
is at ground level. Despite not recognizing the finest levels of granularity from such a distance,
the ability to discern the larger interconnectivities such as roads, highways, clustered
3
communities, bodies of water, mountains, hills, etc., is highly valuable. As the aircraft descends
from its cruising altitude en route to a safe landing, the observant and research-minded aircraft
passenger can construct greater levels of observational depth and insight as more details emerge.
After deplaning, the passenger begins to see all the inherent aspects of ground-level and can
combine them with the bigger-picture perspectives he or she noted during the flight. This
collection of empirical data creates a holistic view, giving the researcher the ability to walk away
with a deeper and richer understanding of the observed multidimensional layers and
interconnectivities.
At the highest-level vantage point or 30,000-foot view, one might observe that human
evolution has created a species that seeks patterns and methodologies for solving problems. On
the simple end of the continuum, trial and error may generate success. As problems grow more
complicated, the mechanisms needed for seeking solutions usually require more effort,
knowledge, and capacity. As the difficulties become complex toward the opposite end of the
continuum, solutions can be quite elusive even when the brightest minds endowed with wisdom
and the best of intentions are involved. Sometimes, one cannot traverse the boundaries of what
is known in a single lifetime. Therefore, each generation typically builds upon the knowledge,
successes, and failures of the previous one, capturing those experiences and then progressively
attempting to move that wisdom and understanding further. This evolution of intelligence is core
to human ingenuity, and every so often, a breakthrough advances the intellect rapidly rather than
in small incremental steps. This modicum of human acumen fuels societal expansion, and one
might suggest that there is an organic
4
nature to the process.

4
The use of the word organic is intended to suggest “a systematic coordination of parts” coupled with “having the
characteristics of an organism” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic).
4
As one descends from the lofty altitude and begins to observe the intricate and
intertwined operational systems that comprise modern society, varying degrees of complexity
start to invade the environmental view. What may have started as a simple multivariable
equation quickly transforms into a convoluted system of equations where the variables
themselves dynamically become functions, and each one might connect to another. Traditional
problem-solving techniques may no longer succeed, necessitating the development of new
processes on-the-fly, which may or may not work. This process is how academic disciplines are
born and how existing disciplines evolve and mature over time. Examples of these are homeland
security in the last five to eight years, public administration over the last century, and
mathematics, medicine, and law over the past two millennia (Falkow, 2013).
At the highest levels of complexity, such as the operation of modern society, even viable,
well-planned, and precisely executed solutions can fail because of the will, or perhaps the mood,
of the populace at any given moment. The constant bombardment of external stimuli, which can
be self-generated, might sway the majority in an unfavorable direction. Sometimes, the minority
gains a voice so powerful that it sways the majority. This outcome is especially true when the
majority chooses to remain silent or passively support the minority through a form of guilt or
peer pressure. Making this more challenging to analyze, both scenarios can be positive or
negative depending upon the situation. What is acceptable today may be unacceptable
tomorrow, and what is unacceptable today, might be acceptable tomorrow. While this situation
looks to be a moving target, it is worse. It is a moving target that can stop being a target at any
moment, and what was once not a target now becomes one. Given this shaky perspective, one
might conclude that developing a formula that leads to success and prosperity when the reality is
organic and often unconstrained may be near impossible at best. With a formula that itself is
5
organic, however, prosplexity is within reach. To determine the formula, one must first
understand frameworks, models, and theories, as these are the building blocks of effective,
valuable, and worthwhile analysis—they form the bedrock of understanding.
Frameworks, Models, and Theories
In any detailed analysis, it is critical to define the structure, boundaries, and constraints
such an examination will entail. Like a science experiment, the form, model, and guidelines
require delineation in a fashion whereby a fair and equivalent evaluation is accomplishable.
Looking at the structural characteristics of frameworks, models, and theories, Elinor Ostrom
defines frameworks as those structures that “identify the elements and general relationships
among these elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis” (2011, p. 8). She
further describes the use of models as the “making of precise assumptions about a limited set of
variables and parameters to derive precise predictions about the results of combining these
variables into a particular theory” (Ostrom, 2011, p. 8). Lastly, Sabatier and Weible (2014) posit
that theories consist “of many variables and the relations among them, which are used to explain
and predict processes and outcomes” (p. 269).
Using frameworks, models, and theories to develop and refine a successful formula for
local government organizations in terms of good governance and how that will lead to
prosplexity is the heart of this qualitative and quantitative research endeavor or mixed-methods
study. The real value, however, lies in the practical application and usage of this formula not
only in identifying a spectrum of good governance from very poor to excellent, but also
providing quintessential advice and guidance to operational public entities that wish to traverse
this spectrum in a positive direction. The first step in our journey of constructing a framework,
which on the surface appears to be organic, is to understand what it means to be organic.
6
An “Organic Framework”
Borrowing some terminology from chemistry, organic frameworks when used to describe
covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are two-dimensional and three-dimensional organic solids
“where extended structures are made by stitching organic molecules together through strong
covalent bonds” (Diercks & Yaghi, 2017, p. 924). Further, these molecular units (or building
blocks) have the inherent capability to generate connectivity or “linkages” in both chemical and
geometric ways and thus construct frameworks (Diercks & Yaghi, 2017, p. 924). Generating an
organic framework for effective local governance will also require two-dimensional and three-
dimensional thinking where the “elements and general relationships among these elements,” to
repeat Ostrom, are non-linear and non-static (2011, p .8). They are dynamic and
multidimensional. It is the determination of the components and their respective subcomponents
(e.g., the building blocks), the understanding of how the components may be interrelated to one
another (e.g., the linkages), and the observation of how seemingly unrelated external stimuli may
create uniqueness of the framework. Finally, it is this uniqueness that gives credibility to the
importance of local governance and the necessity to focus on society’s innate need for it to be
prosplexic (e.g., prosperous despite the complexness of the environment). To ascertain and
dissect the building blocks, linkages, external stimuli, and uniqueness of the framework, it is
important to establish the need for government, public administration, and the public policies
created in order to form a baseline understanding of the overall complexity of the environment.
From that complexity, the organic structure of the framework will emerge through the research.
Need for Government and Public Policies
History has chronicled the development and establishment of evermore-complex
civilizations. The growing human population within these societies coupled with an ever-
7
increasing base of human knowledge, and sometimes wisdom, has led to the realization that there
is a need for structure—in the form of a government—to which people bestow power and the
right to governance for the betterment of the collective. This social contract, as initially
introduced in the writings of Plato, and later advanced by Thomas Hobbs, Jean Rousseau, and
John Locke, led the Founding Fathers of the United States to establish a government that, in the
immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, is and should be “of the people, by the people, [and] for
the people.”
5
The tenet that the creation and establishment of government by its people to serve
its people is the embodiment of a democratic society. For simplicity, the word ‘public’ and the
phrase ‘the people’ are interchangeable. Thus, to achieve this aim, the leaders of a government
must generate and implement constructive, worthwhile, and attainable policies for the benefit of
the public.
Definitionally speaking, these policies are what the government ought or ought not to do
regarding a problem or issue facing the public. Birkland defines policy in this regard as “a
statement by government of what it intends to do such as a law, regulation, ruling, decision,
order, or a combination of these. The lack of such statements may also be an implicit statement
of policy” (2010, p. 9). While describing public policy may be simple from a theoretical or
definitional viewpoint, determining how to make public policy decisions and the challenges
associated with implementing them is far from academic. The practical aspects of public
policymaking are much more complex, necessitating an understanding of why this is the case.
The Complexity of Public Policies
In every society, problems surface that demand confrontation. These problems can be
individual or involve an entire society. To confront these issues as they arise, governments

5
Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863.
8
create and implement policies. Policymaking in the public sector is a dynamic and iterative
process that involves more than just determining what to implement; it involves continuous
evaluation and adjustment, including the possibility of policy termination. All of this requires
establishing what is in the best interests of society (e.g., the public interest), which often involves
a level of utilitarianism. To avoid distraction into the philosophical aspects of this workable
ethical theory, the basic premise of utilitarianism is doing the most good for the most people; this
serves as the foundation for most legitimate public policy (or at least it should). Public policy
decisions, therefore, must address the needs of the populace and provide them the ‘greatest
benefit.’
This ‘greatest benefit’ perspective virtually always comes with an associated cost. Thus,
the cost-benefit analysis approach to public policy decision-making is paramount. Delving
deeper into this notion, however, reveals that for some public policy-related issues, determining a
cost (and even sometimes quantifying the benefit) can be difficult if not impossible, and it is
often subject to debate among the parties or stakeholders involved. A quick look at providing
safety and security, a chief aim of public policy, illustrates this point. It may be easy to quantify
the value of property, such as a car, house, or piece of jewelry, and thus the cost of protecting
something of known value is easy. The value of something less easily quantifiable and even
more valuable, such as a person’s life,
6
becomes geometrically more complex to ascertain. Thus,
public policy decision-making focused on spending versus public safety quickly derails the belief
in a simple cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, attempts to replace it with a weighted scale of
sorts with ranked value propositions also fails because some people might order various value
propositions differently based upon their personal experiences, family customs, moral attitudes,

6
Peter Schuck, in his 2014 book Why Governments Fail So Often: and how it can do better refers to this as the
“Value of a Statistical Life (VSL).
9
or general beliefs. This notion leads to the dilemma, as Lindblom points out, where
“administrators must choose directly among alternative policies that offer different marginal
combinations of values” (2010, p. 74). Here, public policy administrators face having to select
between options where the alternatives involve subcomponents of each that may not necessarily
be factorable into common or equivalent parts. Thus, as Lindblom contends, “a means-ends
relationship is possible only to the extent that values are agreed upon, are reconcilable, and are
stable at the margin” (2010, p. 75). This margin is a baseline of sorts that regrettably changes
with each policy, making it a moving target that is difficult to hit.
Further complicating the issue of public policy decision-making is the fact that there will
be some members of the public who receive a greater benefit or even benefit at the detriment of
others (e.g., social programs are a good example). While everyone in society benefits from clean
air and clean water, for instance, public policy that establishes firm guidelines for the
establishment of these two essentials can restrict another’s ability elsewhere. Take, for example,
laws restricting smoking in public places that hamper a person’s right to smoke but help create a
smoke-free environment for those in the public who dislike inhaling side-stream or second-hand
smoke. On the surface, it seems that using simple formulas yielding the greatest good to the
greatest number may suffice when weighing the relative merits and demerits of determining
public policy. Regrettably, the mathematics of public policy decision-making requires a far
more complex calculus. It requires more than a simple summation of pluses and minuses in
terms of value judgments. Public policy decision-making involves a dynamic set of variables
where each can change not only in magnitude but also with respect to their relevance both
dependently (with other variables) and independently (with external and seemingly unrelated
stimuli).
10
Next, it is essential to examine the complexities of the policy process itself. Sabatier and
Weible propose that the “policy process is best imagined as a complex phenomenon of
continuous interactions involving public policy and its context, events, actors, and outcomes”
(2014, p. 391). The interconnectivities among these components, coupled with the very nature of
policymaking, create an environment where policies and the problems they address do not
always appear linearly. That is, a sequential A-through-Z progression from problem to solution
is not inherent to the policy process. Thus, while we can outline distinct stages of the policy
process, they do not always proceed down a designated and clearly defined pathway. There are
inputs and outputs, feedback loops, and multiple opportunities to modify, overhaul, or even
cancel the effort. Furthermore, unlike a simple project that is temporary and traditionally has a
starting point and an endpoint, the policy process may, in fact, continue indefinitely, as the very
environment surrounding it could change, necessitating the addition of a new phase extending
the policy process perpetually.
Another aspect of complexity arises when examining the role of those officials who make
policy decisions. Often, policymakers focus more on what Volden describes as the balance
between the benefits of getting “credit” for providing something of value versus the “blame”
arising from the costs of a policy decision (2005, p. 328). The costs, in this case, typically refer
to the impacts (often negative) to a politician’s credibility, reputation, or career. There exists as
an axiom that politicians follow two rules: 1) they need to obtain elected office, and 2) they need
to remain in office. True or not, this perspective can easily go against the basic principle in a
represented democracy that elected policymakers (all elected officials for that matter) should put
their desires second to the needs of those they serve.
11
Moving beyond the creation of public policies to that of implementing them sheds light
on just how deep the levels of complexity go. Since governance involves many components, all
of which focus on maximizing the public’s interest, it is essential that the importance of
governance be fully understood first.
Importance of Governance
To one degree or another, governance is present in most entities in the public and private
sectors, hence the popular term corporate governance. Looking at the public sphere,
specifically, modern society requires governance if it is to remain civil. This type of governance
comes in multiple forms and levels. In the United States, the tri-level government structure has
endured for more than 230 years. Examining these three levels of government, the national level
often dominates the headlines in large part due to the perception that everything more or less
funnels up to the top and the belief (which may be somewhat inaccurate) that the federal
government has a far-reaching impact on the citizenry. The fact is, according to Kettl, “the
federal government, by contrast, devotes most of its administrative energy to national defense
and the transfer function” (2015, p. 39). By transfer function, Kettl is referring to collected funds
(usually in the form of taxes, fees, and the like) that the government disperses to people and
entities as dictated by policies. In the middle, the 50 state governments play more of an
“intermediary” role, as Kettl submits, since they are tasked primarily with “transferring money to
local governments (especially for public schools) and administering grants from the federal
government (especially for welfare and Medicaid)” (2015, p. 39).
Observing these local governments, one cannot ignore the sheer magnitude of their
number. Comprised of counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, special districts such
as fire, water, and library districts, transit authorities, and joint powers authorities (just to name a
12
few), the most recent U.S. Census Bureau Report (2017), which was last revised on April 11,
2019, put the number of local governments at 90,075, of which 19,495 are municipalities (e.g.,
cities).
7
The reality is that most of everything that directly impacts people on a day-to-day basis
in a society in terms of the direct provision of services occurs at the local level (Kettl, 2015).
This viewpoint leads to the implementation of policy, which brings yet another level of
complexity to the environment in need of a framework.
The Complexity of Policy Implementation
While the lifecycle of a policy involves many iterative processes including defining the
problem to be solved, performing the requisite analysis and study, crafting the proposed solution
(e.g., the policy), presenting it to the decision-makers, etc., the implementation of the final
version of the agreed-upon policy is not without its complex challenges. James Wilson provides
a high-level list of obstacles to policy implementation. While he focuses the genesis of his
position on the national level of public policy implementation, these obstacles apply to local and
state levels of bureaucracy as well. Wilson suggests five hurdles to policy implementation: 1)
accountability and control, 2) equity in the form of fair treatment by policy implementers across
similar policies, 3) efficiency as it relates to getting the most value from the expenses associated
with the policy’s implementation, 4) responsiveness of the policy implementers in terms of their
desire to implement and their time to implement, and 5) fiscal integrity, which focuses on the
proper handling of the public’s money (1967, pp. 4-5).
At the lowest level, one does not have to delve too deeply into local government to find
divisive education boards, city or town councils, boards of selectmen, or county boards of
supervisors where much of the time and effort is wasted getting the majority in these legislative

7
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html
13
bodies to agree on the policies to be made and the methods of their implementation. Personal
biases, interpersonal issues, and conflicts with one another create obstacles that impede
effectiveness. Special interest groups, unions, and political donors who have successfully
lobbied bureaucrats into one corner or another through their promised or actual monetary support
create additional impediments to efficacy. Even simple political, religious, or personal beliefs
can polarize bureaucrats, rendering compromise elusive and constantly hindering efforts to bring
about successful implementation. These same characteristics and instigators cloud a bureaucrat’s
ability to treat similar issues equally when similar policies arise. An example of this is the
treatment of under-performing teachers in a school district. Most boards of education are
unlikely to make headway due in large part to the powerful teachers’ unions that can make or
break candidates running for office or politicians already seated in office. However, these same
politicians often complain vehemently about teacher performance publicly to gain support from
their constituency.
As far as efficiency is concerned, most bureaucrats focus on the decision and not the
implementation. Thus, they place little concern on what Wilson calls “maximizing [the] output
for a given expenditure, or minimizing expenditures for a given output” (1967, pp. 4-5). A
legislative body that directs a social program’s implementation without completely
understanding the ongoing and increasing funding requirements is a clear illustration. Surveying
local government bureaucrat responsiveness, it is common for them to be part-time legislators.
While some may receive fulltime pay and benefits, they place a priority on dealing with
constituent concerns and keeping their special interest groups and political donors happy because
retaining office or obtaining a higher office is often paramount. This condition leaves policy
implementation (and any repercussions from it), which can sometimes take more time than the
14
politician’s term in office, a distant second. Finally, fiscal integrity is a severe problem despite
stronger calls for transparency and accountability. The public trust is sacrosanct, but far too
many politicians fall prey to less-than-honorable actions. This unethical conduct happens at all
levels of government, and shamefully, it happens far too often. This situation brings to light the
issue of moral and ethical complexity, which is a topic addressed in detail later.
Wilson also points out other reasons why policy implementation can be challenging.
First, he suggests that “there are inherent limits to what can be accomplished by large
hierarchical organizations” (Wilson, 1967, p. 6). This view is especially true of large cities,
counties, and states, and of course large federal agencies, not to mention the federal government
itself. The bigger the jurisdiction, the greater the number of moving parts that require
synchronization. This assessment leads to slow and often inefficient progress. Next, Wilson
posits that “the supply of able, experienced executives is not increasing nearly as fast as the
number of problems being addressed by public policy” (1967, p. 7). This evaluation is true at
every level of government due to the inefficiencies of the civil service system. Most often within
civil service, people promote through an organization because of their tenure, not their skill set.
Furthermore, there is little incentive for civil servants to expand their knowledge and
capabilities because the union and collective bargaining group protections make it difficult (or at
least undesirable) for management to remove employees for suboptimal performance. This
perception leads to complacency and incompetence, which can virtually eliminate innovation and
new or more creative ways of thinking. When policymakers rely upon civil servants to
implement their policy, the results can be less than stellar. This condition, too, adds to the
complexity. Next, the discussion moves to the most significant component of complexity in
governance, which is morality and ethics.
15
Moral and Ethical Complexity
Given the natural structure of democracy in the United States, coupled with the
representative government that ensues, the opportunities for ethics challenges (e.g., misconduct
or even questionable conduct) are pervasive. Making matters worse, the apparent lack of active
observation and participation by the constituency creates an opportunistic environment for
elected and appointed public officials to abuse their power and position. Ethical decision
making, according to Ljungholm, is “the operation whereby citizens employ their moral essence
to establish whether a particular case or matter is right or wrong” (2015, p. 58). In the absence of
a formal oversight entity with valuable, legitimate, and effective powers over public leaders,
these elected and appointed officials often supervise themselves. This bureaucratic self-
supervision creates a moral hazard of sorts leading the public administration enterprise, as
Ljungholm contends, to “have caused the circumstances for ethical quandaries to thrive” (2015,
p. 59). Considering these quandaries, the onus falls upon the public to function as ethics
watchdogs. The primary problem with the public serving in this capacity is that they often lack
the desire, motivation, or tacit knowledge to be effective even when they are proactively engaged
in the public entity’s business. Even with public records requests and information statically
posted on jurisdictional websites, the public’s outside-looking-in vantage point does not provide
them with adequate ways to witness what transpires behind the scenes of an organization. Plus,
who has sufficient time, energy, and wherewithal to expend trying to oversee the day-to-day
operations of a public entity? Most full-time employees within the organization cannot
accomplish it, so how can an outsider do it?
To combat this apparent no-win scenario, the media, watchdog groups, and coalitions
with specific oversight goals focused on exposing underlying problems often publicly scrutinize
16
the actions (or inactions) of public entities and the leadership and management charged with its
operation. While not always entirely effective, this consortium of observers does provide an
inherent service. Their mere existence and the potential that they might uncover or expose
questionable conduct, management shortcomings, corruption, and the like keep the elected and
appointed officials of these public entities on their toes—at least for the most part. Sometimes,
these observers’ actions lead to reforms. However, most importantly, perhaps, their efforts often
open the eyes of the citizenry to some of the harsh realities of what goes on inside the walls and
behind the closed doors of these public entities. To those willing and able to pay attention, these
bitter actualities underscore an age-old human problem of right and wrong, good choices and
poor choices, and the fact that, as Peter Singer (1991) notes, “anyone who thinks about what he
or she ought to do is, consciously or unconsciously, involved in ethics” (p. v).
The complexity involved in morality and ethics is a dubious one at best. While it may
seem easy to operationalize right and wrong actions on basic levels (e.g., stealing is wrong,
telling the truth is right, avoiding conflicts of interest should be rewarded, etc.), the effects of
morality and ethics on local governance can be multidimensional, highly fluid, and situation-
specific. This situation creates a hyper complexity of sorts. To address this concern, it is
important to delve into this topic more deeply and connect ethics to governance.
Operational Definitions
Looking specifically at the central theme of public entities and ethics, the first order of
business is to set the stage with baseline operational definitions. First, it is essential to define a
society. Rawls (1999) defines a society as a “self-sufficient association of persons who in their
relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part
act in accordance with them” (p. 4). These rules of conduct, as Quinn suggests, describe “what
17
people ought and ought not to do in various situations,” which he posits is morality (2017, p. 51).
Going a step further, Quinn defines ethics as “the philosophical study of morality, a rational
examination into people’s moral beliefs and behavior” (2017, p. 51). Combining all of this, a
person’s morality within a society is typically based upon laws, rules, customs, culture, and a
plethora of other factors, and the need to evaluate, examine, and possibly change these moral
rules within a society consequently gives rise to the study of ethics.
The study of morality and ethics dates back thousands of years when the great
philosophers began debating right from wrong to understand and classify man’s actions and
behaviors. Perhaps the most important work in this area is Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,
where he focuses on many aspects of ethics, including moral virtue, moral responsibility, justice,
and a host of other related topics across ten books (e.g., Book I through Book X).
8
As man’s
intellectual capacities grew, and the societies he created became more complicated, the debate
and complexity surrounding what actions and behaviors were moral and ethical grew as well.
History is replete with examples of once morally acceptable actions and behaviors
changing over time or becoming obsolete because of conflict or majority rule (e.g., slavery’s
legality and acceptance in early U.S. history). Sometimes these cycles generate lingering
controversy that continues to fester until a new majority belief takes hold (e.g., prohibition via
the 18
th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1919, and its subsequent repeal via the
21
st
Amendment ratified in 1933). Even today, society is grappling with the legality of THC
(e.g., tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly referred to as cannabis or marijuana) and if or when
aborting an unborn child is “legal.” Currently (June of 2020), a national movement has gained
significant traction into the morality and ethics surrounding racial disparity, social justice, and

8
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
18
public safety. In the not-to-distant future, modern society will likely struggle with ethical issues
surrounding technological automation, which may take the form of reliance on autonomous
vehicles and who is/are responsible for accidents and injuries associated with their use (e.g., can
an algorithm’s creator be sued?); the use of artificial intelligent-based systems, which might
prescribe sentencing guidelines in courts of law instead of error-and-emotion-prone humans; or
even human-robot physical contact in public, relationships, or whether robots deserve basic
“human” rights. While this may sound like the plot of a futuristic science fiction movie, moral
and ethical dilemmas surrounding these types of issues will undoubtedly emerge, as there are
ruminations already brewing. How society and policymakers will deal with these and other yet-
unknown ethical issues remain.
At the core of these continuing debates is man himself, a sentient being capable of
purposeful action and inaction, which may be both expected and unexpected. Adding a
significant level of complexity to this is the fact that there are no certain or guaranteed
mechanisms to his intent, predisposition, or thought processes involved in making decisions,
which one person may judge to be immoral or unethical and another person may judge to be
completely justifiable and ethically proper. The baseline, as many philosophers have argued,
boils down to values, which Oyserman defines as “internalized cognitive structures that guide
choices by evoking a sense of basic principles of right and wrong” (2015, p. 36). It is often what
a person values in terms of priorities that define his or her actions on a moral or ethical level.
How a person defines his or her values originate from many places such as family upbringing,
friends, religious and cultural affiliations, education, and the society and social norms in place
where he or she lives. On this point, Oyserman postulates that “cultures may be said to provide
19
concrete and social embodiments of values” (2015, p. 36). Finally, Oyserman suggests that one
must look at related concepts such as “motives, goals, and attitudes” (2015, p. 36).
While it may be easy to put hypothetical chicken wire around moral and ethical actions at
any given time, it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty what a person in a given
situation will do. Analogous to the number of possible moves a chess player might make, the
intervening factors create an inordinate number of potential combinations. While
psychoanalytical evaluation and testing may provide some potential insight and although certain
conditions may potentially guarantee a certain response to stimuli, these options are at best only
superficial descriptors, as a person’s freedom of thought supports the unexpected since that
person always reserves the right to do whatever he or she wants. It is this free will that leaves
the door open to ethics challenges and potentially unethical and immoral conduct, at least as
potentially judged by others from an external perspective. This situation creates another level of
complexity, as one’s actions may be deemed inappropriate (e.g., immoral or unethical) by one
person and yet completely appropriate by another even when both individuals observe the same
fact pattern.
A quick example highlights this paradox. Suppose a person takes an apple from a street
vendor’s fruit stand without paying for it. On the surface, an external ethical observer might
likely draw the immediate conclusion that this person is a thief and has committed an unethical
and perhaps immoral act (if not the crime of petty theft). As such, apprehension and punishment
for this thief is appropriate for his or her criminal behavior. This same external ethical observer
might not have the same feeling or draw the same conclusion if he or she discovered that the
thief, a young teenager, is penniless, at the point of pure desperation, and guided only by the
need to feed her ill and starving mother. The latter who without some form of sustenance will
20
certainly perish. While the act of stealing remains unchanged, applying one’s value system may
change the judgment rendered for this transgressor’s unethical action. Hence, there is a need to
understand how values, motives, goals, and attitudes intertwine as well as the mutually inclusive
role each plays among the others. In a sense, as building blocks of the framework of local
governance, morality and ethics may serve as wildcards, given their hyper complexity from
touching virtually everything.
Connecting Ethics to Governance
Often, public policies involve money and its collection, management, and expenditure.
Typically, public funds are generated through fines, fees, penalties, and the mandatory taxation
of the citizenry as part of the social contract they have with the government, which then uses
these funds and redistributes them as it sees fit. Thus, the power over public funds often takes
center stage because of the significant economic impact public funds can wield. While state and
federal governance of public funds may not always be optimal, there are typically stringent
regulations and strong supervision in place to prevent misuse. At the municipal (e.g., local)
level, however, some might contend that those in charge are not subjected to the same rigorous
levels of oversight, creating havens for corruption and malfeasance—the roots of ethical
challenges.
As one begins to imagine the fluidity of a framework, the building blocks, linkages, and
external stimuli may, at times, coexist systematically and calmly. Other times, however, these
components chaotically fuse, creating instability and confusion like molecules forced together
against their natural chemical bonding properties. Therefore, as one continues to examine the
hyper complexity associated with values and ethics in governance, it is important to touch upon
aspects of public administration, civic engagement, and local cultural intelligence, as their
21
interactions (e.g., the linkages) create additional levels of complexity. It is important to note that
local cultural intelligence, which might equate to ‘political intelligence’ depending upon one’s
vantage point, focuses on understanding the uniqueness of a community.
Public Administration
Kettl (2015) suggests, quite simply, that public administration exists to get stuff done. In
public administration, much like many other disciplines or fields of study, the unwavering
necessity for ethical conduct on the part of those who govern (e.g., both elected and appointed
officials) and those who professionally manage (e.g., public administrators) is paramount.
Collectively referred to in the discipline as public sector ethics, the need for transparency and
accountability grows along with the depth and complexity of society. Scholars and practitioners
suggest that this leads to public trust.
Government-based transparency, as the phrase implies, is the unwrapping of the
processes within government. Opening the doors, pulling back the curtains, and letting in the
light so all can see is the desired goal. Whether or not those people looking in understand the
processes is, of course, another story. Accountability, according to Kettl (2015), is about
relationships between people about things. It is a foundation of bureaucracy because it allows
policymakers to control the actions of administrators. Accountability also allows the governed to
hold the policymakers responsible for their actions (and inactions).
Since philosophers first began active discourse into how man ought to conduct himself
within society, the process by which he makes decisions and takes action coupled with how these
endeavors impact himself and his fellow societal contemporaries have been the subject of much
debate. What has emerged over the past two millennia regarding ethics are numerous theories,
some of which are flawed, incomplete, or too rigid; others may be viable but lack certain
22
necessary attributes to make them universally adoptable. Even further, as some philosophers
contend, the inherent changes in society over time introduce new levels of complexity, which
require constant evaluation of these theories to stay current with man’s evolutionary thought
processes and the social changes he willingly and unwillingly produces. The gaps this creates
can be exploited by those with the knowledge and ability to do so (typically those officials who
are elected or appointed to represent the citizenry), and those people unable to defend themselves
against these exploits (e.g., the governed) may be doomed to remain subjugated by those in
power. To be fair, as Vanlandingham (1968) points out, “corrupt government can occur in any
city…and the only sufficient guarantee against its occurrence is an alert citizenry possessing
considerable political intelligence” (p. 273).
Political Intelligence and Civic Engagement
Obtaining political intelligence requires education, knowledge, and experience both on
the part of those who elected and appointed and on the part of those represented. It is important
that one correctly understands the term politics. According to Kettl (2015), politics is about
choices among values—which values receive emphasis and which ones do not. Examples
include police, fire protection, paramedic services, and hospitals (e.g., public safety); housing
programs (e.g., mortgage and rental assistance, subsidies, first-time-homebuyer opportunities,
etc.); education (e.g., choices and opportunities, funding, etc.); infrastructure and transportation
(e.g., streets and roadways, water and sewer systems, utilities, etc.).
Collectively, the term civic engagement describes participation in government by the
citizenry. While this may help bridge the divide, these attributes alone are not sufficient, as the
interest and willingness to be involved in a continuous and worthwhile manner are often lacking.
Looking at the U.S., the absence of constant civic engagement could itself warrant a thorough
23
research-based investigation. To short-circuit such a side-lining endeavor, among the many
items that Putnam (1996) addresses, he concluded that television and the rapid diffusion of that
technological innovation was likely the main culprit in reduced civic participation. This notion
adds fuel to the speculation that technology, as a disrupter, adds multiple layers of complexity to
the environment of governance—beneficially and detrimentally. Finally, participation typically
happens at times when it appears the government has become involved in a citizen’s life to the
extent that intrusion or interference warrants a form of civic action. This belief is very apparent
in the public safety sphere when issues of funding versus excessive use of force consistently
make the headlines.
Aside from community-wide or even nationwide protests that happen from time to time,
for the most part, only small fractions of the electorate actively take part in local government
affairs, as very few people appear concerned enough to become involved. This “out of sight, out
of mind” mentality, as it relates to public administration and the governance that accompanies it,
seems to amplify an already challenging and undesirable situation. One might ask the obvious
question then: what does it mean to be deeply involved in government? Even biannual or
quadrennial opportunities to vote, which are measures of citizen involvement in democratic-
based societies, do not impel citizen participation, as evidenced by voter apathy.
A recent PEW Research Center (PEW) study supports this claim, as it found that votes
cast as a percentage of the voting-age population versus the percentage of registered voters
during the most recent U.S. Presidential election in 2016 were 55.7% versus 86.8% (DeSilver,
2018).
9
PEW notes that “while political scientists typically define turnout as votes cast divided
by the number of eligible voters, in practice turnout calculations usually are based on the

9
http://pewrsr.ch/2riznbL
24
estimated voting-age population (VAP), since eligibility is affected by many hard-to-measure
factors such as citizenship, imprisonment, residency rules and other legal barriers” (DeSilver,
2018). Thus, the difference translates to the fact that less than two-thirds of those registered
voters cast a ballot (e.g., 55.7% ÷ 86.8% = 64.17). What is perhaps more striking is that PEW
found that this “puts the U.S. behind most of its peers in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development [OECD], most of whose members are highly developed,
democratic states” (DeSilver, 2018). This situation, according to PEW, puts the U.S. in 28
th

place among the 35 OECD member nations (DeSilver, 2018).
One argument is that low voter turnout suggests that voters are satisfied and do not wish
to see change. Others might argue that one of the basic tenets of democracy is that everyone is to
vote (to demonstrate their participation). So, does this mean that people in the U.S. do not care
about who governs them or what those who govern do once they enter office? The ramp-up and
climax associated with hot-button topics or political races are often short-lived. Like other
objects in nature, everything eventually seeks to return to stasis. While there may be noticeable
changes that resonate afterward, considerable of the knowledge and experience on the part of the
citizenry dissipates, and life goes on until the next alarm bell rings.
Nowhere does this paradigm play out better than at the municipal government level.
Although the constituents involved being at the closest proximal distance to those who are
elected and appointed when compared to the county, state, or federal levels of government, once
municipal elections are over or controversial local issues appear neutralized, it is often back to
the way it was until the next hot-button topic, issue, or election rears its head. This cycle is a
way of life of sorts, and the fact that people both tolerate it and expect it suggests they only care
when forced to care. As an example, in 2018 in Orange County, California, the growing
25
homeless problem finally reached a tipping point requiring immediate action by the elected
county leadership (e.g., the Orange County Board of Supervisors). A large group of constituents
not in favor of the county’s prospective solution immediately mobilized as soon as they became
educated and knowledgeable on the issue.
10
A mere few weeks after that significant outpouring
of negative sentiment, news reports related to the homeless issues fell silent in favor of the next
bright, shiny object that drew everyone’s attention.
The Complex Environment of Governance
The previous effort involved in establishing the complexity inherent to the environment
of local governance has brought to light a vast and evolving nature of topics including public
policies and their implementation, morality and ethics, public administration, political
intelligence (or more precisely, local cultural intelligence), and civic engagement. Looking at
how to design a framework for good governance, these principles serve merely as a guide or
baseline of sorts. There are other aspects of governance that are also involved. These include
standard topics such as budgeting and fiscal management, organizational behavior and personnel,
transformational leadership and collaboration, and social responsibility and sustainability, among
others. The list of building blocks (large and small) might include virtually anything measured
or tracked in a local jurisdiction. Key metrics are often related to public works projects, building
permits and the revenue associated with them, commercial projects undertaken/completed,
socioeconomic factors (e.g., median household income, the median cost of housing, number and
types of housing, unemployment, number and types of businesses, education attainment of the
residents, public schools, etc.), number of government employees (e.g., full-time, part-time, and
seasonal), acres of parkland and their utilization, public transportation and its usage, city

10
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oc-homeless-housing-20180321-story.html
26
reputation, social media presence, and the list goes on. This research seeks to assemble these
components (e.g., building blocks, linkages, external stimuli, and areas of uniqueness) to
determine their respective roles in the organic framework.
Primary and Secondary Research Questions
Within contemporary society, there is a need to understand what makes a thriving and
dynamic local government organization that can be prosperous despite the complexities of
human evolution, technological automation, and the changes in how people think and feel given
the bombardment of stimuli that engages society on a routine basis. The primary question this
research seeks to answer is what are the specific and definable factors (e.g., building blocks,
linkages, external stimuli, and areas of uniqueness) that can be enumerated, evaluated, and
analyzed in such a manner as to develop a framework for effective and resilient local governance
despite the ever-increasing complexities of that environment—to find local governance
prosplexity.
This effort also seeks to address and lay the foundation for the following secondary
research questions:
1. Can the design and structure of the framework factor in and anticipate challenges that
exist in the public sector?
2. Can a quantitative model emerge from the framework that accurately describes (using
statistical probability) the likelihood a local government will be prosperous?
3. What new or improved mechanisms, techniques, measures, or tools might enhance
the prospects for prosperity and reduce negative outcomes in the long-term?
Purpose Statement
As society becomes increasingly complex, one cannot ignore the pervasiveness of local
governance. Therefore, it is essential that academicians and practitioners in public policy, public
administration, and politics (both current and future) be able to accurately identify what
27
constitutes good local governance and direct how to get there when the existing condition in a
given jurisdiction is less than desirable. The purpose of this research endeavor is to look at local
governance within contemporary American society with a focus on developing a practical and
usable framework that will lead to resilience and prosplexity (e.g., prosperity in a complex
environment). Specifically, what building blocks, linkages, and external stimuli comprise such a
framework, and can this “organic” framework serve as a foundation to develop a model that can
be used as a predictive analysis tool for existing local government entities. Such a tool may
determine when to employ certain measures in entities with a lower level of good governance.
Also, entities shown to have a higher level of good governance will also benefit by knowing
ahead of time what specific areas of concern to watch out for or avoid. Finally, one should note
that the goal of this research is not to create implicit, implied, or inferential accusations against
specific jurisdictions or jurisdictional types that might fall short of good governance. Instead, it
is to examine and evaluate entities holistically using generalized criteria to advance the practice
of public administration and public policy at the local level.
An effective framework might be of value to experienced elected and appointed officials
charged with governing local jurisdictions just as a standard pre-flight checklist is valuable to a
veteran pilot, and it may also benefit newly elected and appointed public officials as they quickly
assume their newfound duties and responsibilities when sometimes having little-to-no experience
to leverage. Finally, a useful and effective framework might serve as an educational tool for
those members of the electorate so inclined to participate in their local government through
valuable and worthwhile civic engagement.
28
Research Design
Creswell (2014) advances three approaches to research (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methods). He views these as a continuum with purely qualitative research on one end and
purely quantitative research on the other end with mixed-methods research somewhere in the
middle. Figure 1 below provides a graphical depiction of this perspective.

Figure 1. Research Approach Continuum
Given the complexities inherent in isolating, studying, and interpreting phenomena in the
real world, having flexibility as it relates to these research approaches is important and adds
value to a study. This research effort is a mixed-methods type, as “it incorporates elements of
both qualitative and quantitative approaches” (Creswell, 2014, p. 3). It is qualitative in that its
focus will be on “exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a
social or human problem” (Creswell, 2014, p. 4). It is quantitative in that it will assess
“objective theories by examining the relationship among variables” (Creswell, 2014, p. 4).
Research Methodology
This research endeavor involves a phenomenological research methodology,
11
as the
objective is to focus on the “lived experiences” (e.g., the knowledge, expertise, and reflective
insight) of individuals (e.g., experts) as described in detail in Chapter 4: Methodology and
combining it with qualitative interpretations of the meaning behind the data. A cross-section of
incorporated jurisdictions in the State of California will serve as the representative sample. Also,

11
Phenomenology is a philosophical construct founded by Edmund Husseri circa 1900 and expanded upon by
Martin Heidegger and then Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009).
29
two out-of-state local jurisdictions (e.g., Sesser, Illinois, and Willoughby, Ohio) participated in
this research (one elected policymaker from each city). While intentionally excluded from the
pool of data collected from the representative sample of 38 California cities given the inherent
differences in the legal structure and municipal composition of out-of-state jurisdictions, the
specific information collected from these two elected policymakers demonstrates that the
components of the framework are independent of region-based or even state-related geographical
boundaries. Rather, the components are fundamental building blocks for good local governance.
Their inclusion in the study sets the stage for future expansion of this research.
The method of data collection will be qualitative interviews of local government
leaders—both elected leaders (e.g., mayors, mayor pro tempores, vice-mayors, supervisors, and
council members) and chief pubic administrators (e.g., city managers, city administrators, and
chief executive officers). Brinkmann (2013) suggests that qualitative interviews from
individuals focusing on their point of view are a valuable method of data collection when
obtaining detailed experiences, understandings, and explanations of events. Kvale and
Brinkmann (2009) refer to them as “a social production of knowledge” (p. 17). Qualitative
interviews, which are dynamic, can be far better research tools than surveys, which are often
passive and go unanswered. Tailored interviews provide a greater degree of richness in terms of
data gathered when the domain of the interviewee or group interviewees is specific.
There is a great deal of scholarly work that covers government, public administration,
public policies, governance, morals, and ethics. The next chapter surveys a small subset of this
vast expanse of literature relevant to the notions of governance and the related components
comprising the topic. While it is certainly not all-encompassing by any means, it serves as a
continuation of the topics introduced in this chapter while concentrating exclusively on the areas
30
needed to support the intended framework. Specifically, it will examine governance and
complexity, frameworks, ethics, civic engagement, oversight, and influence, and the
characteristics of California municipal governments.
31
Chapter 2: Literature Review
What people know often defines who they are, their perception by others, and what they
become. To advance what they know, they seek to learn new things, ponder innovative ideas,
and acquire new knowledge. While it is important to quantify the mechanics of how people
learn, what must first be referenced is the fact that at the core of this search for new knowledge is
motivation, determination, and commitment because expanding a person’s intellectual capacity is
not a simple task—if it were, humanity’s academic prowess might be limitless. This thirst for
knowledge, metaphorically speaking, has led to startling breakthroughs and advancements that
have changed the course of human evolution. However, despite this insatiable desire to learn,
knowledge acquisition still returns to the individual and his or her desire to take that first step.
Often, the first step involves asking an unasked question. The steps involve iterative cycles of
research and writing with the ultimate goal being the production of a scholarly work that adds
knowledge and value to the discipline or advances the profession involved.
Having a plan—a map per se—detailing the process by which necessary research ought
to be conducted to produce scholarly writing is as essential in academia as the air one breathes.
One of the most significant aspects of this scholarly writing involves examining the pool of
existing literature on a given topic/subject. This published material serves as the foundation or
launching pad for the scholarly writing endeavor. Once this area of focus is determined, the
writer is ready to begin the often-daunting task of conducting research. While necessary and
time-consuming, seeking out worthwhile sources does not have to be an overwhelming venture
that causes apprehension, anxiety, or even paralysis.
12
Instead, if done properly, the research

12
The phrase “paralysis by analysis” typically describes the debilitating physiological condition where people find
themselves faced with effort levels appearing boundless, making them feel insecure and inadequately prepared.
32
process can be rewarding, motivating, and even exciting, especially with the wonderful and
efficient technology tools that exist today.
As such, what follows is a brief and never complete journey into the vast and deep arena
of literature on local government complexity and the related topics (some of which have been
discussed previously) of leadership, social responsibility, organizational culture, civic
engagement, oversight, influence, accountability, transparency, reform, innovation and change,
and technology. The overarching goal of the literature review is to identify gaps, which can best
be described and illustrated using a Venn Diagram with circles representing sources arranged in
such a way as to cover as much of the “literature landscape” as possible in search of unions,
intersections, and connections, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Governance and Complexity
The term governance appears in the literature across multiple different domains, each
carrying levels of distinction and uniqueness concerning meaning. Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill
(2001) cover the distinction between private sector governance and public sector governance in
their discussion of a “logic” for governance research. Lynn et al. (2001) point out that owners of
GAP
GAP
GAP
Literature Landscape
Figure 2. Literary Sources as a Venn Diagram
33
private sector entities control their management to exercise their rights of ownership, and market
forces often dictate courses of action. Public sector governance, on the other hand,
fundamentally boils down to the exercise of rules, regulations, and laws within society.
Schneider (2012) suggests that “the broadest meaning of governance is the production of social
order, collective goods or problem-solving through purposeful and social intervention, either by
authoritative decisions (hierarchical governance) or by the establishment of self-governing
arrangements" (p. 2). Focusing on society and its many different systems and processes, many
of which can be interconnected, Schneider (2012) suggests that “governance theory can be seen
as a reflection of growing societal complexity” (p. 5). As society continues to evolve, social
scientists have begun to apply complexity theory as a tool “to explain the emergence of ‘social
orders,’ such as organizational patterns and institutional structures in political and economic
systems” (Schneider, 2012, p. 6). Looking at these patterns and structures, Schneider (2012)
suggests that they are “inherently dynamic and adaptive” (p. 7). As such, they can create “new
behavioral patterns in the sense that an organized whole is more than the sum of its parts”
(Schneider, 2012, p. 8).
When one part or component of a system impacts another, this interdependence and
interconnectivity of the linkages illustrate a key aspect of complexity, referred to as nonlinearity,
which makes the behavior of the system difficult to predict (Schneider, 2012, pp. 10-11).
Looking at the prospects of creating an organic framework for good local governance, it will be
important to recognize that governance theory itself is unlikely to serve as a “single all-
explaining mechanism” (Schneider, 2012, p. 12). O’Toole and Meier (2011) suggest that
governance is much broader and includes more than just the government entity itself. It includes
other entities (e.g., public, private, non-profit, etc.) and even other governments. Thus, one must
34
exercise careful thought when examining the building blocks and complex linkages inherent
among them. Weiss and Wilkinson (2014) posit that governance “should account for changes in
and of the system and focus on the causes, consequences, and drivers of change, not just today
but over extended periods of time” (p. 207). This notion introduces the element of time, which
adds another dimension to the complexity of the framework, since many components of
governance are impacted by the movement of time (e.g., policy development and decision
making, budgets, politics, etc.). Often the problems of today take center stage, leaving other
sometimes pressing issues to languish until they either fade away or themselves take the
limelight. As such, effective governance must be dynamic and flexible enough to account for
rapidly changing environments, which can sometimes be disastrous or even as catastrophic as an
international pandemic.
Supporting O’Toole and Meier (2011) and their broad sense of governance is Rothstein
(2012), who posits that governance not only refers to “certain qualities of government
institutions but also to governments’ interaction with the various sections of the private sector”
(p. 2). The interaction with the private sector (and all other sectors) is vital to the concept of
collaboration, which is a key component to the organic framework for good governance. This
collaboration connects to policy development and policymaking, which, as noted earlier, are
fundamental aspects of governance and one of the primary reasons for its inherent complexity.
O’Toole and Meier (2011) suggest that a link exists between performance and outcomes. Thus,
there is clear interconnectivity between the performance of an entity and its governance.
Rothstein (2012) covers the link between good governance and human wellbeing, which he
contends is a measure by which an individual evaluates his or her total quality of life. This
component connects the citizenry to the organic framework and sets the stage for obtaining their
35
empirical, qualitative input; one might call this co-creation (discussed in more detail later).
Finally, Rothstein (2012) remarks that good governance must have at its base ethical principles,
which demonstrate only part of the hyper complexity of governance, as stated earlier. It also
covers the need for normative theory as a basis for what “good” really means when discussing
“good governance.”
Frederickson, Smith, Larimer, and Licari (2016) posit that “governance is concerned with
understanding the process by which public policy is created, implemented, and managed” (p.
232). This focus on the process is important. Those who judge and hold policymakers
accountable usually do so by the outcomes of the policymaker’s efforts and less by the processes
they follow. There are inextricable links between process, performance, outcomes, and
accountability, especially in public organizations. Rainey (2014) cites the crucial need for a
critique of government, its officials, and its employees because “we control government in part
by scrutinizing and criticizing it” (p. 450). The literature often points to New Public
Management (NPM) when discussing outcomes, and multiple authors suggest a tight coupling
between NPM and governance, if not mutual inclusivity. In an attempt to stay on point,
Frederickson et al. (2016) connect government to society in terms of governance and its need to
recognize “the unique cultural and political role” of what the public sector produces in terms of
goods and services (p. 233). Frederickson et al. (2016) next suggest that effective governance
must be collaborative. They point to four characteristics and qualities of collaboration: “no
boundaries to the collaboration,” voluntary participation, collaboration only has the authority and
power afforded to it by those involved, and collaboration is permanent only if the participants
deem it to be (p. 243). Finally, and most importantly for this research endeavor, Frederickson et
al. (2016) state that “the complexity of governance theory, particularly collaborative governance,
36
poses a serious challenge to the development of a useful theoretical framework of governance”
(p. 248). What does this mean? Interpretively, it means that scholars and practitioners in the
sphere of public administration and public policy must make a concerted effort to weave together
interconnected building blocks into a framework that fundamentally addresses the dynamic
needs of a rapidly changing ecosystem that brings together multiple actors and stakeholders, all
of whom are actively and passively involved in governing, being governed, and assisting with
the process.
Frameworks
The most difficult aspect of this research will be to construct a valuable and useful
framework. The research accomplished by Lynn et al. (2001) in designing governance research,
specifically, models, methods, and data, provides valuable guidance. They point out that having
“full awareness” of the key aspects of the study coupled with “a precise understanding of
competing theories or explanations for the observed phenomena” is more likely to produce
concrete results (p. 105). Furthermore, Lynn et al. (2001) bring to light that “familiarity with
alternative ‘ways of knowing’ are influenced to at least some degree by the researchers’
disciplinary backgrounds and experience” (p. 105). This principle is the case here. This research
endeavor takes full advantage of the researcher’s professional background and experience
together with in-depth academic research into the topic area.
Türke (2008) contends that “a framework is useful only in the light of the added-value it
delivers for coping with practical issues” (p. 19). Focusing on good governance, any useful
framework must include “instruments and tools that facilitate the understanding of social systems
and enable their diagnosis and structural re-configuration” (Türke, 2008, p. 19). Using an
example of a good governance framework for open and distance learning institutions, Khanna
37
(2017) proposed the following seven basic principles followed by eight good governance
practices (p. 25):
Principles
(1) Performance – effective and efficient.
(2) Transparency – openness.
(3) Accountability.
(4) Participation.
(5) Leadership – direction and strategic vision.
(6) Fairness and equity.
(7) Consensus orientation.
Practices
(1) Focusing on organisations’ purposes and outcomes.
(2) Performing effectively well-defined functions and roles.
(3) Promoting values for the organization and demonstrating the values of good
governance through behaviour.
(4) Making well informed and transparent decisions with full information, advice and
support.
(5) Managing effectively – the risks, the conflicts and the conflicts of interest.
(6) Enhancing capacity and capability of all players of governance in the organization.
(7) Assigning clear responsibilities and accountability.
(8) Improving integrity while working faithfully with loyalty and devotion.

These attributes will serve as a baseline for inclusion and incorporation into the goals and
objectives of an organic framework and its building blocks.
Ethics
William Frankena’s seminal work entitled Ethics (1973) provides an in-depth discussion
of the philosophical study of morality. It also creates a baseline for someone to evaluate one’s
ethical system, which may properly align with a given ethical theory or might be a
conglomeration of various parts from multiple theories. Each person is unique, and his or her
moral fabric can be comprised of many distinct threads of varying thicknesses and tensile
38
strengths, each of which can change over time or be entirely removed or replaced. An even
greater level of complexity is created when people are confronted with the multitude of external
forces and factors that are introduced daily by the rapid expansion and reach of technology (e.g.,
through the internet, via social media, and by way of the multitude of television channels
available through cable, satellite, or fiber-optic connections), which has dramatically increased
the amount and accessibility of information.
This information overload and the ease to which people actively and passively interact
with it can be problematic. The ability for individuals to discern legitimate material from phony
trash (e.g., ‘real’ versus ‘fake’ news) along with the hyperpolarized spewing of information from
either far rightwing or far leftwing sources some call ‘news’ more than distorts the landscape.
Making the issue even worse (if that is at all possible), the continued natural amplification of
diversity among the population in terms of individual beliefs (e.g., religious, political, cultural,
etc.) coupled with the typical sensitive factors such as race, color, creed, national origin, gender,
age, etc., have altered the evolution of modern society in ways sociologists are still trying to cope
with let alone explain. No longer does the collective voice rest solely with the majority. The
technology-assisted dissemination of information (real, fake, and radically lopsided) has given a
louder and sometimes deeper voice to the minority; it has undoubtedly enhanced its reach.
The rapidly changing social landscape is impacting the public sector as well in both
positive and not-so-positive ways. The old methods of looking at public government, its
administration, and the politics surrounding and within it are becoming obsolete. Technology
has put the governed in positions of awareness and to a degree control, placing elected officials
and their administrators in unfamiliar territory. Similarly, those elected and appointed to serve
the best interests of the public are under heightened scrutiny when it comes to not only their
39
actions but also their inactions. Relationships between those who govern and the outside special
interest groups and benefactors with whom they interact are increasingly exposed. While the
ethical standards expected of our elected and appointed public officials may not have changed,
the broader and more in-depth situational awareness of the citizenry brings ethics concerns and
the resultant conduct of public officials (at all levels of government) into the spotlight like never
before. This scenario creates a need in governance for constructive and operational public sector
ethics, which Capps refers to as that “which balances internal, prudential interests with external,
moral requirements” (2010, p. 283).
Civic Engagement, Oversight, and Influence
How citizens interact with their government can be tenuous and, at times, unwieldy.
When do people visit their government? It is usually to pay a fine, fee, or penalty, get
permission to do something they do not think the government ought to regulate, or simply
complain. Most often, citizens do not think about their local government when they drive down
a city street, turn on the water, flush the toilet, or in some cases, switch on or off the lights (e.g.,
infrastructure and transportation). Similarly, shopping at a local business or dining at a local
restaurant does not typically evoke thoughts of local government (e.g., city-business relations)
unless a sign appears in the window denoting the establishment’s application for an alcohol
license or a grade received from the health department. It is only when a citizen needs to contact
the police, fire department, or code enforcement, or when something does not work that he or she
takes the time to initiate a call. Rivenbark and Ballard (2012) provide valuable qualitative
insight into the basics of how citizen-based surveys monitor and improve the performance of
local government. It illustrates what most people have as a predisposition: ‘the big stuff is fine
40
but dealing with staff is the worst.’ As a form of good governance, both civic engagement and
public opinion will tell a great deal about a jurisdiction.
The primary strength of Rivenbark’s and Ballard’s (2012) work is that it covers a
mechanism of qualitative research called a survey. Furthermore, they discuss using a survey to
measure performance within a local government agency. This measurement tool is worthwhile
because the number of people that visit their city hall versus the total number served is dramatic.
From experience, it is in the low, single-digit percentage range, quantitatively speaking.
Furthermore, it is usually the same people repeatedly. That is, the same people visit city hall to
obtain building permits. The people who chronically receive parking tickets are repeat visitors to
city hall to contest their citations or simply pay them. Moreover, those citizens who come to
complain always come to complain—even when there is no justification. The value of
Rivenbark’s and Ballard’s (2012) work in public sector ethics relates to civic engagement and
governance, which directly correlates to oversight and influence. These, of course, lead to
accountability and transparency.
At this point, it is imperative to have a clear understanding of these two terms to avoid
confusion regarding their definitions. Bovens, Goodin, Schillemans, and Gailmard (2014)
describe accountability in terms of principal-agent theory such that the members of the public
serve as the principals and public entities function as the agents whereby “principals judge the
performance of their agents” (p. 2). The literature on transparency is significant, and
Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch summarize it well when they define it as “the disclosure of
information by an organization that enables external actors to monitor and assess its internal
workings and performance” (2012, p. 563). Going a step further, the notion of transparency
typically suggests that the demander (or principal using Bovens et al. vernacular) will expect the
41
agent to disclose any aspects of its operations upon request. In discussing this expectation of
transparency, Heald (2012) points out that a distinction exists as to whether it “is to drive out
corruption or whether the goals are greater efficiency and effectiveness from the use of public
resources and enhanced legitimacy and accountability of public institutions” (p. 31). Here,
Heald (2012) is pointing out that transparency lets the “sunshine” through, illuminating the
public entity and its actions.
Characteristics of California Municipal Governments
Katz and Bradley (2013) contend that “cities and metropolitan areas constitute the
engines of the national economy and our centers of trade and investment” (p. 171). Everything it
appears begins at the city level. Furthermore, Katz and Bradley (2013) point out that cities shape
our environment and the physical space of the communities in which we live; they impact our
lives on a personal and professional level day in and day out. For this reason, cities are the
central aspect of local government and where the focus of this research must begin.
Using a representative sample of California cities, the details of which appear in the
section entitled, Represented Sample of California Cities in Chapter 4: Methodology, this
research endeavor intends to focus on what organizational characteristics or factors may
contribute to good governance on the part of those who are elected or appointed to lead these
jurisdictions with the hope that the framework might someday drive the development of a
predictive analysis modeling tool.
Starting with a view from 30,000 feet as described earlier, one must first perform a high-
level evaluation of the interconnectivities associated with the components or factors involved.
With the bigger picture outlined, a deeper dive will yield measurable (quantitative)
42
characteristics of these California cities. Categorizing, analyzing, and evaluating these attributes
is next. Table 1 below lists these characteristics.
1. City Corporate/Legal Structure (e.g., general law city versus a charter city)
2. Form of Government (e.g., council-manager, mayor-council, etc.)
3. Mayor Elected At-large Versus Mayor Selected by Council
4. Part-time Versus Fulltime City Council
5. Term Limits for Elected Officials
6. Use and Extent of Contract Services
7. Statistics/Demographics (e.g., population, educational attainment,
unemployment, etc.)
Table 1. Characteristics of California Municipal Governments
The first of these characteristics is that of corporate or legal structure. Of the 482 cities in
California, 361 are general law cities, and 121 are charter cities.
13
This legal distinction is
important. California cities that do not adopt a charter
14
pursuant to California State
Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(a) are general law cities and governed by the State’s general
law. Often referred to as “home rule,” charter cities, on the other hand, have great latitude in
managing their “municipal affairs.” While not an exhaustive list, California State Constitution,
Article XI, Section 5(b) dictates the following as it relates to municipal affairs:
It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions
allowable by this Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution,
regulation, and government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a
city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only
to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner
in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several
municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected
or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of
deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation,

13
http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Learn-About-Cities
14
A city charter is analogous to a city-level constitution.
43
method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies,
clerks and other employees.
15

In addition to these four fundamental elements, the League of California Cities has listed the
following areas, which the courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs:
municipal election matters, land use and zoning decisions (with some exceptions), how a
city spends its tax dollars, and municipal contracts, provided the charter or a city
ordinance exempts the city from the Public Contract Code, and the subject matter of the
bid constitutes a municipal affair. Thus, a charter may exempt a city from the State’s
competitive bidding statutes.
16

The second of these characteristics is the form of government. According to the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), there are five forms of local
government in the United States. They are the council-manager, mayor-council, commission,
town meeting, and representative town meeting.
17
The form of government may enhance or
restrict good governance based upon leadership styles and the values of those in command-level
positions, the organizational culture that dominates the organization, and a host of other related
factors.
The third of these characteristics is whether the mayor is elected at-large by the electorate
during a municipal election, or if the mayor is chosen by the council members for a specified and
possibly rotational period within his or her term of office as a councilperson. The mayor is often
the figurehead of a city, the de facto “chair” of the council meetings, and the signer/executor of
city agreements and documents. As such, the real (or perceived) power associated with that
position might be a factor in whether good governance develops or is sustainable within a
jurisdiction.

15
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapt
er=&article=XI
16
http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Charter-Cities/Charter-Cities-A-Quick-
Summary-for-the-Press-and-R
17
https://icma.org/documents/forms-local-government-structure
44
The fourth of these characteristics is whether the elected council is fulltime or part-time.
Included in this aspect of government might be whether they receive compensation (often as an
employee), and if so, what their respective salaries and benefits may be. The rationale behind
this characteristic tends to focus on why an elected policymaker has sought office in the first
place. Is this role his or her primary job, or does he or she make a living doing something else?
What is the amount of time they devote to serving in their roles as elected policymakers versus
doing their primary jobs (if any)? These issues will impact good governance.
The fifth of these characteristics is whether there are term limits for the elected
policymakers within the municipality. Certain jurisdictions limit the number of consecutive
terms an elected official may serve. In contrast, other jurisdictions allow an elected official to
remain in office for as long as he or she continues to win re-election. Does a long-term, career
politician in a city government create a catalyst for good governance within that jurisdiction any
more or less than a short-term politician? Often, the question of getting things done takes the
spotlight. If a short-term politician is unable to remain in office long enough to have a beneficial
impact on the governance of the organization, then term limits are a legitimate aspect of the
framework. Conversely, if a long-term politician remains in office for so long that he or she
develops or continues poor habits or questionable conduct, then term limits are an appropriate
aspect of the framework.
The sixth of these characteristics is the use and extent of contract services within a
jurisdiction. Contract services involve the use of outside providers instead of hiring and
maintaining employees to perform specific public services. Some municipalities, for example,
contract with a professional law firm for their legal services rather than have an in-house
department (e.g., a city attorney’s office) staffed with costly attorneys, paralegals, administrative
45
personnel, etc., as employees. Other examples of contract services include public safety (e.g.,
using and paying a fee for police or fire services from another jurisdiction), public works, waste
management, utilities, etc. Whether or not a jurisdiction subscribes to contract services is likely
to affect good governance.
The seventh of these characteristics are jurisdictional statistics and demographics, which
includes among other things, years incorporated, population, educational attainment of the
citizenry, levels of unemployment, etc., much of which comes from the U.S. Census Bureau (see
Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities for a snapshot of each jurisdiction that
participated) or the in-depth city profiles produced by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Council.
18
These information sources, among others, provide
insight into trends, patterns, and other statistically relevant aspects of municipalities that might
be beneficial when compared and contrasted among the other entities within the sample
population.
With data collection complete, analysis for groupings based upon standard criteria and
ranges is the next step. For example, groupings of cities with the same population range
naturally form subdivisions or classes. Another example may be general law cities versus
charter cities. With multiple subdivisions or classes, the application of various aspects of set
theory (e.g., unions, intersections, etc.) will yield noteworthy conclusions and help guide
continued analysis.
The next major area of inquiry may be a complete and thorough document review of
those jurisdictions within the sample population where significant ethics challenges surfaced and
were published over the past 20 years to discern whether or not a predictive framework exists.

18
http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/LocalProfiles.aspx
46
Michael McGrath writes in his essay entitled Lessons of Bell, California that in addition to that
city, “A partial list of nearby communities that have experienced public corruption investigations
between 2003 and 2010 would include South Gate, Lynwood, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Maywood,
and Vernon” (2013, p. 51). Using a qualitative case study-based approach, examining cities such
as these could uncover patterns, trends, or other relationships that might yield insight into ethics
challenges facing cities. Similarly, the handling of these ethical dilemmas may generate a
checklist or guide that is usable for other jurisdictions. Often when issues, scandals, or the like
plague a jurisdiction, calls for reform are usually swift and decisive, leading to enhancements in
all the things that were lacking, such as transparency, accountability, civic oversight, etc. Along
these lines, cities that have taken steps to create oversight bodies, commissions, task forces, and
panels may also provide constructive insight (e.g., the San Francisco Ethics Commission, San
Jose’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Ethics, the San Diego Ethics Commission, the Los Angeles
City Ethics Commission, etc.).
19

Finally, and to the extent possible, additional qualitative research methods such as
interviews and surveys might yield valuable information and insight. It is understood, however,
that significant pitfalls exist following these methods, as interviewees may choose not to tell the
truth, as accurate input might be perceived as harmful to their personal and organizational
reputations. Also, surveys are likely to go unanswered despite potential levels of incentive.
These drawbacks create concerns that may eliminate one or more of these qualitative research
methods now or as part of future research.

19
http://www.cityethics.org/us/california
47
The Need for an Analytical Framework
Frameworks often emerge from an observation that a system or process needs structure,
organization, form, or classification. To accomplish this, establishing a set of baseline
characteristics or components must occur after an in-depth evaluation, subsequent synthesis, and
application of theory. It is vital to determine where the framework intends to operate. Is the
domain higher education, such as a framework for an academic discipline? Is it a framework
that describes the journey one might take to produce a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation?
Often, there is a theoretical aspect to a framework, as well as a practical one. Both are important
to not only the framework’s description but also its intended use as a practical, real-world tool.
In the case of local governance, while definitions abound as to what it is, why it is
essential, and what it means to be “good,” there is a need for an analytical framework that breaks
down the building blocks and component architecture in an easy-to-understand fashion that is
adequately descriptive, not overly theoretical, and perhaps most importantly, highly practical.
This framework must be usable across all jurisdictions, regardless of size, stature, socioeconomic
conditions, demographics, and geography, as the common theme that unites all local jurisdictions
is a democratic governmental structure where members of the community are elected by their
neighbors to govern. These elected policymakers are then responsible for selecting and
overseeing a chief appointed official (e.g., city manager/city administrator/town manager/city
chief executive officer) to oversee the day-to-day management and operations of an internal
administration (and contract staff) that implements the policies created by the elected council.
Chapter 3: Defining the Analytical Framework details an intended framework for effective and
resilient local governance that will be “field-tested” using a rigorous qualitative research
methodology described in-depth in Chapter 4: Methodology.
48
Chapter 3: Defining the Analytical Framework
Creating the building blocks of a framework for effective and resilient local governance
requires an iterative process and a multifaceted approach. Under the auspices of Lynn et al.
(2001), a “logic for governance” is essential to adequately address the “daunting challenges of
conducting rigorous governance research that is of significant practical value” (p. 19). While
undoubtedly the aim of this research endeavor, it is essential to recognize first that producing a
‘one-size-fits-all’ solution is doubtful. Instead, it is more likely that the organic nature of the
framework, the linkages among the building blocks and their respective subcomponents, and the
various levels of uniqueness inherently found in local jurisdictions will collectively dictate that
differing levels of importance (or weight/intensity) be assigned to certain building blocks and
their subcomponents. Second, there are differing opinions on what it means to be a successful
jurisdiction. How governance is evaluated may depend upon who is doing the grading, what
background and experience he, she, or they may have, and whether that person is (or those
persons are) inclusive or exclusive of the jurisdiction. Third, there is the question as to whether
the evaluation is fair and unbiased. This aspect of an assessment remains problematic as
personal or professional preconceptions and biases may inherently exist. Fourth, since there is a
time-based element to the evaluation, a jurisdiction may exhibit good governance during one
period only to have a single event or a combination of multiple compounding or cascading
events take place that negatively impacts the jurisdiction temporarily or for an extended time
during another period.
As such, an analytical framework should not require expert evaluation, and it should be
valid statically and dynamically as well as retrospectively and prospectively. Finally, the
framework should also stand up against regional, national, or even global issues, such as the
49
COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 or the nationwide protests over racial inequality that occurred
during the same period. While the importance levels of the various building blocks and
subcomponents may change in the short-term, long-term, or even permanently based upon the
magnitude or impact of the event(s), the overall component-based architecture of the framework
itself should remain valid. Future expansion of the research might yield additional levels of
subcomponent analysis and dissection, resulting in the discovery of new attributes of the
framework. Analogous to the way the Founding Fathers of the United States designed the U.S.
Constitution to be modifiable over time and remain current, this framework must be flexible and
adaptable as well, adding yet another aspect to its organic nature.
This chapter outlines and describes the building blocks and their subcomponents of a
Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance. This framework serves as a baseline
for the qualitative research effort that seeks to assemble the “lived experiences” of a cross-
section of California city government officials, specifically elected policymakers and their
appointed officials. The policymakers are comprised of elected city council members or
members of the board of supervisors (specific in this case to the city of San Francisco) who
currently hold office to distinguish them from other elected city officials such as city clerks, city
treasurers, city attorneys, etc., who do not vote on city policy matters. The appointed officials
represent the senior-most appointed officials, namely city managers, which also includes similar
titles such as city administrators, city chief executive officers, and town managers, all of whom
are appointed to their respective posts by the elected policymakers of that jurisdiction. It is
meaningful to note that instances occur where a city manager may be serving in an interim
capacity while the city council of that jurisdiction searches for a permanent appointment.
Sometimes this interim appointed official may be a retired city manager who returns to service
50
temporarily to assist a jurisdiction during the executive search process. In other cases, a city
council may temporarily place a lower-level executive in an “acting role.” In every case related
to this research, however, only city managers (or an occasional interim city manager) are
considered (e.g., no “acting” city managers, assistant city managers, deputy city managers, or
department directors are included), as the intent is to collect the lived experiences from only the
highest appointed official of a jurisdiction to represent that subgroup.
Collectively, this group of experts, divided into two subgroups—a policymaking
leadership subgroup and a public administrative leadership subgroup, represents a robust sample
of the 482 incorporated jurisdictions in California. (Chapter 4: Methodology, Sample City
Selection details the selection process for this representative sample of cities.) The assessment
tool, which is also described fully in Chapter 4: Methodology, involved secure, individual, face-
to-face interviews via Zoom
20
lasting approximately 30-to-60 minutes. The primary objectives
were to meet separately with a member of the policymaking leadership subgroup and the
representative of the public administrative leadership subgroup of each jurisdiction to capture the
expert knowledge and reflective insight from these leaders to discuss, validate (or invalidate),
and rank the importance of the building blocks and their subcomponents. Also, assembling the
collective thoughts, ideas, perspectives, and assessments of the participants helped determine the
categories of uniqueness among jurisdictions and the linkages among the building blocks
resulting in a valuable and impactful framework for good local governance.
The literature often cites examples of good governance in both the public and private
sectors and what it might look like in each. While some scholars might contend that private
sector governance has evolved further than public sector governance after such high-profile

20
Zoom is an online videoconferencing tool that provides remote connectivity. The platform is produced by Zoom
Video Communications, Inc. Copyright 2020. https://zoom.us/
51
governance failures such as the accounting scandal at Enron in the United States and the bribery
scandal at Siemens in Germany (see Primbs & Wang, 2016), there is a need for a holistic
evaluation of good governance in local public government at the component level that integrates
not only the main building blocks but also the relationships among them taking into account the
fundamental uniqueness among local jurisdictions. There are other stakeholders involved in
local governance besides elected and appointed officials. These include the citizenry being
governed; the internal administrative staff who execute, implement, and oversee public policy;
and the various “related parties” to a jurisdiction, who consist of business, non-governmental
organization (NGO), and other non-profit leaders, religious leaders, educational leaders, and
even other governmental bodies and leaders (e.g., related officials and entities from special
districts, school districts, and county, state, and federal agencies). While it is valuable to
understand each of their roles, ultimately, the operational characteristics of a jurisdiction rest at
the top with the leadership who is chosen by (and removed by) the electorate and bestowed the
power to make policies, implement regulations and laws (e.g., in the form of local ordinances),
collect and expend the public’s money, and impact the day-to-day living conditions of the
community and its constituency. Finally, the elected leadership gives direction to and holds
accountable the jurisdiction’s chief public official who oversees the internal administration (e.g.,
the staff, consultants, contractors, vendors, etc.) that implements the direction or “will” of the
city council.
Main Building Blocks
As noted previously, there appears to be an organic nature to the framework for effective
and resilient local governance. Much like a graphic equalizer is a device that serves to vary the
intensity levels of multiple sound frequencies (see Figure 3 below) to obtain the most optimal
52
listening experience with a component-based stereo system, the magnitude and levels of intensity
associated with the building blocks and respective subcomponents of the framework also vary.

Figure 3. Graphic Equalizer Representation
Using as a starting point the work of Nachef, Phade, Sturdevant, and Zhou (2019), the
building blocks of the framework involve four main topical areas, as shown in Figure 4 below:
Values and Ethics Transformational Leadership
Innovation and Co-creation Strategic Planning

Figure 4. Main Blocks of the Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
53
Figure 5 below provides a graphic representation of the framework’s interconnected core
structure.

Figure 5. Core Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
21

Looking at these four components as building blocks, using the categories of the annual
Helen Putnam Awards for Excellence given by the League of California Cities
22
as guidance,
and adding in some practical intuition based upon extensive public sector experience, each of the
four building blocks is further divided into four related and possibly interdependent elements.
This creates 16 subcomponents (e.g., 4 x 4 = 16).
Bringing forward the graphic equalizer analogy and banding the groupings of individual
frequencies in the same fashion as the main building blocks of the framework might begin to
look like what is depicted in Figure 6 below.

21
Adapted from Figure 2 – Interdependent, Interrelated, Interconnected Elements of Institutional Effectiveness
(Nachef, Phade, Sturdevant, and Zhou, 2019, p. 23).
22
https://www.cacities.org/Top/Partners/Helen-Putnam-Awards.aspx
54

Figure 6. Graphic equalizer divided into four (4) sections
What follows is a breakdown of each of the four main building blocks, including a brief
description of each subcomponent.
Values and Ethics Subcomponents

Figure 7. Values and Ethics Building Building Block
The values and ethics building block of the framework shown above in Figure 7 focuses
on the local government entity and the people who operate it. There is a core need for the people
operating an entity that is tasked with responsibilities such as (but certainly not limited to)
55
creating policy, implementing rules, regulations, and laws (e.g., ordinances), collecting and
dispersing public funds, and controlling the fundamental, day-to-day livelihood of those who are
within the entity’s grip of control to possess proper and decent ethical standards as well as the
values that support them. While there are a multitude of ways to interpret proper and decent, the
necessary ethical standards of those who govern and those who support the governing process
must not only distinguish between what is morally right and wrong as defined by societal
guidelines and expectations, but it must also serve to support the needs of the constituency at all
times above any personal agendas or even the appearance of such. Furthermore, these values
and ethics must incorporate consistent benchmarks and opportunities for ensuring that the
constituency can continuously see, oversee, and hold responsible those who govern. Finally, it is
worth mentioning that just because something is available for the public to see, this action alone
does not guarantee that the public will even look at it. Likewise, if they do take the time to look,
there is no guarantee they will understand what it is.
The values and ethics building block contains the following four subcomponents:
1. Public Trust—the idea that the government should operate in a manner that supports the
needs and benefit of the public.
2. Civic Oversight—how citizens interact with their government when monitoring or seeking to
improve its performance.
3. Transparency—unwrapping government processes so all can see.
4. Accountability—Bovens et al. (2014) suggest that “principals judge the performance of their
agents” (p. 2).
56
Transformational Leadership Subcomponents

Figure 8. Transformational Leadership Building Block
The transformational leadership building block shown above in Figure 8 focuses
specifically on how the leaders of a local jurisdiction approach both leadership and management
of the entity. While the literature covers multiple definitional perspectives of transformational
leadership and the differences between leadership and management, running a successful local
jurisdiction involves more than just ensuring effective and efficient operation. Transformational
leaders tend to look at multiple dimensions of an organization, the interconnections inherently
contained within it, and the cause and effect of actions (and inactions) inside and outside the
enterprise. They look at how to leverage internal and external relationships to understand better
their community, its culture, and its values. Transformational leaders seek to enhance not just
the organization, but also the community they serve. They understand that inspiration,
57
motivation, influence, and consideration, as Bass (1985) theorized, are the ingredients necessary
to generate trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect.
The transformational leadership building block contains the following four
subcomponents:
1. Collaboration and Consensus Building—effectiveness in leveraging public, private, and
non-profit sector partners to achieve a jurisdiction’s mission, goals, and objectives.
2. Internal Administration—how well a jurisdiction transforms policy (or politics) into what
the citizenry sees on a day-to-day basis.
3. Public Safety—the scope, range, and effectiveness of police, fire, paramedic, hospital, and
emergency management.
4. Local Cultural Intelligence—how one understands the uniqueness of the community.
Public safety is included in this building block, as it relates to the need for
transformational leaders to ensure and oversee the adequate provision of public safety services
throughout the community. It is paramount that every community has sufficient, effective, and
accessible public safety services. Given the national sentiment and societal unrest that took hold
in many jurisdictions across the nation toward the end of May of 2020, this subcomponent
should not be confused with either overseeing or policymaking related to local law enforcement
operational tactics or specific funding-related issues taken out of context and not part of an
organization’s typical budget process.
58
Innovation and Co-creation Subcomponents

Figure 9. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block
The innovation and co-creation building block shown above in Figure 9 focuses on the
need for a local jurisdiction to continuously pursue novel, creative, and better ways to balance
the needs of the community against the scarcity of resources available to meet the rising costs of
those needs. Private sector entities typically operate in a profit-driven modality. If operating
costs exceed total revenues for an extended period, the continual net loss is likely to force the
entity to cease operation. If the entity is producing a product or service, it must frequently
enhance its offerings and create new offerings to remain competitive, as the need to persistently
court the consumer for his or her dollar is a necessity. This environment naturally drives
innovation. Local governments, on the other hand, must “stay in business” to provide essential
services to the community. Unfortunately, this operational structure does not always demand
innovation, as the “old way of doing things” can become the mainstay, making necessary
59
organizational change difficult. This complacency with the status quo is especially true since
hikes in demand for particular income (e.g., tax-based revenues such as transit occupancy taxes,
parking taxes, stadium, arena, or other large-venue ticket taxes, and even portions of sales taxes)
or fees for services (e.g., building permits, business licenses, etc.) can often happen by legislative
action. This model of simply demanding more revenue or curtailing services (e.g., reducing
expenditures) when costs exceed the funds available is not sustainable. Furthermore, “kicking
the can down the road,” which is a colloquial expression often used to suggest a “get now and
pay later” approach, is also detrimental to an organization’s long-term prosperity, as it creates a
perpetual problem that inevitably costs more in the long run further stifling creativity and
innovation. Finally, innovation alone is not sufficient when looking at the mission, values, and
goals of a local jurisdiction and the community it serves. There is a co-creation component,
which in the public sector involves the creation of policy from a participatory perspective, as
Boland and Collopy (2004) suggest.
Public leaders must consider sustainability as it relates to taking care of present-day
needs without kicking that proverbial can down the road. They must encourage and support
youth, as they are the participants and future leaders of society. Also, it is unlikely that one can
be innovative without the effective and efficient use of technology, especially as it relates to
providing services to the public they serve. This perspective includes the basic need to
communicate across all platforms to all stakeholders, participants, and related parties. Finally,
while there are some small jurisdictions with little to no business entities within their city’s
limits, most jurisdictions rely heavily on the businesses within their jurisdiction for revenue,
quality of life, and job creation and preservation.
60
The innovation and co-creation building block contains the following four subcomponents:
1. Youth Development—providing social and emotional learning, promoting equity, culture,
and diversity, and encouraging healthy living and civic engagement.
2. Sustainability—supporting, encouraging, and endorsing “the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 8).
3. Technology and e ‐Gov—effective use of technology to support a jurisdiction (e.g., internet,
social media, radio/TV, mobile apps, etc.).
4. City ‐Business Relations—the synergy between the departments of a jurisdiction and the
business entities within and related to it.
Strategic Planning Subcomponents

Figure 10. Strategic Planning Building Block
The strategic planning building block shown above in Figure 10 focuses on the need for a
local jurisdiction to effectively plan for and create a community that can thrive now and into the
61
future. Management-related literature overflows with discussions of strategic planning, which
has its roots in military strategy. While buzzwords such as vision, values, mission, goals, etc.,
carry multiple definitions and perspectives, strategic planning in the simplest sense is an ongoing
process seeking positive organizational change. Private sector entities might survive for a
hundred years or so, but local governments are supposed to survive indefinitely. Generation
after generation, communities must deal with everchanging and evolving landscapes. As such,
local jurisdictions must consistently have, review, and update strategic plans. These plans must
consider times when slow and subtle changes occur, while other times, they must deal rapidly
with dramatic and life-altering transformations. All the while, the process must maintain a
constant course toward prosperity, human wellbeing, and a desirable quality of life, which
includes the basic necessity of shelter (e.g., housing), clean water and reliable sewer systems,
and the ability to travel easily within and outside the jurisdiction (e.g., infrastructure and
transportation).
Lastly, while plans themselves have value, it is the process of planning that is most
important. In support of this position, there is a broad belief that Sir Winston Churchill (1874-
1965) said, “Plans are of little importance, but planning is essential.”
23
Similarly, President and
General Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) said, “Plans are worthless, but planning is
everything.”
24
These two influential historical figures were suggesting that the systematic and
ongoing process one goes through to get to the plan is what counts.

23
https://hbr.org/2016/06/strategic-plans-are-less-important-than-strategic-planning
24
Remarks at the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference in Washington, D.C. (November 14, 1957);
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes; https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/media/3860
62
The strategic planning building block contains the following four subcomponents:
1. Economic Development—how a jurisdiction plans for and executes endeavors promoting
growth and prosperity economically, socially, and environmentally.
2. Community Services and the Arts—the efforts that focus on sustainability, revitalization,
culture, self‐sufficiency, and human wellbeing.
3. Housing Programs—how a jurisdiction promotes housing opportunities, grants, and the like
for the various socioeconomic groups living within its borders.
4. Infrastructure & Transportation—the extensiveness, practicality, and support a jurisdiction
gives to its sewers, water systems, roads, highways, and public transportation.
Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
Putting all the components together creates the Conceptual Framework for Effective and
Resilient Local Governance, as illustrated in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11. Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
63
Linkages
The interconnectivity of the building blocks and subcomponents is a major aspect of the
framework. The qualitative research aspect of this endeavor seeks to establish the multifaceted
linkages by interpreting the relationships between and among the building blocks and their
subcomponents. The presumption is that there will be connectivity versus no connectivity,
magnitude associated with the connectivity (e.g., powerful versus weak), the influence of
external stimuli (or the absence thereof), and the uniqueness and complexity of the individual
jurisdictional environments that will impact the multidimensional aspects of the framework.
Once complete, the linkages will bring the form to the organic framework in a way that will
describe good local governance using the building blocks, their subcomponents, and their
relationships to one another.
The next chapter describes the research methodology to be employed in verifying and
validating the framework, along with supporting or discounting various hypotheses associated
with good local governance. The research endeavor involves determining and subsequently
examining a representative sample of incorporated jurisdictions within California that will
provide not only a symbolic illustration of the varied city characteristics found within the state
but also yield descriptive enough results to be valuable and distinguishable.

64
Chapter 4: Methodology
Often the literature review functions as an academic “treasure hunt” where the researcher
digs through mountains of existing literature in search of academic wisdom pertinent to the topic
at hand. Although new literature pours in daily, creating a perpetual need to continue digging,
for a given research endeavor, it is clear the treasure hunt must have a termination point (or at
least a timeout). This effort creates an interesting phenomenon, which is beyond the scope of
this effort but is nonetheless noteworthy. If the purpose of a research endeavor of this type is to
create a useful contribution to society and advance the profession in some form or fashion, then
it must bridge the gap between theory and practice. This situation would suggest that as new
research pours in as mentioned, then review and enhancement of the contribution should happen
periodically. This evaluation and update process is something that all researchers should
consider, and future technology may come into play that assists with such a novel effort. In the
meantime, with a comprehensive (but never totally complete) literature review, followed by a
chapter devoted solely to establishing the framework for effective and resilient local governance,
it is time to define and discuss the intended research. Hence, the need for a chapter discussing
the methods by which the researcher will conduct a well-accomplished study that is disciplined,
ethical, and void (to the extent possible) of researcher bias, the latter of which can be very
challenging when the researcher may be considered a subject matter expert.
Methodology and Methods
It is valuable to distinguish between methodology and methods as it relates to qualitative
research. The methodology refers to the process and strategy underlying the method. The
method is the specific technique(s) used to gather and analyze the pertinent data. This endeavor
65
employs a phenomenological research methodology,
25
as the objective is to focus on the “lived
experiences” of individuals (e.g., experts). Phenomena, according to Moustakas (1994), “are the
building blocks of human science and the basis for all knowledge” (p. 26). Thus,
phenomenology is the study of phenomena. Moustakas (1994) posits that with
phenomenological studies, the researcher poses a question void of any suppositions and
discovers results that lead toward further research.
The primary method of acquiring expert lived experiences is through interpretative
phenomenological analysis (IPA). Reid, Flowers, and Larkin (2005) point out that the researcher
becomes part of the process, as he or she actively engages in the research through the “subjective
and reflective process of interpretation” inherent to the lived experiences of the research
participants (p. 20). Some of the fundamental aspects of IPA according to Reid et al. (2005) are
that it is inductive (e.g., bottom-up versus top-down), it does not validate hypotheses, and its
primary objective is to acquire and investigate how participants, who are experts in their arena,
give meaning to their various experiences. Finally, Reid et al. (2005) suggest that it is critical for
the analysis to balance between what is distinct among participants and what is similar across all
participants.
For this research endeavor, it is vital to recognize that the researcher, while a subject
matter expert in his own right, is inherently biased. However, as part of the research process, he
must gather the lived experiences of the experts in an unbiased, structured, and consistently
similar way (e.g., through the repetitive use of a static qualitative interview tool) and then
interpret the results subjectively by leveraging his subject matter expertise. To move forward

25
Phenomenology is a philosophical construct founded by Edmund Husseri circa 1900 and expanded upon by
Martin Heidegger and then Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
66
with this method of qualitative analysis, determining the method of data collection is the first
order of business.
Qualitative Interviewing
Two particularly useful tools, among others, available to researchers seeking to perform
qualitative research are surveys and interviews. Surveys, which are easy to create, administer,
and tally with the help of internet-based tools and cloud-based platforms such as qualtrics
XM
,
26

Zoho’s Survey,
27
and SurveyMonkey
28
to name a few, often go unanswered, especially when
unsolicited or unincentivized. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the target recipient may not
be the one who completes the survey in cases where the intended participant is a high-profile
leader who may delegate the task to an underling. This predicament creates a dilemma in terms
of response validity when a researcher seeks to obtain unique feedback from a specific research
subject. To avoid these issues and potentially obtain deeper and more meaningful data by
tailoring the tool to the participant, a researcher can instead employ qualitative interviewing.
Qualitative interviewing is a method of data collection where detailed experiences,
understandings, perspectives, and explanations of events come directly from individuals by
focusing on their point of view. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) refer to it as “a social production
of knowledge” where the interviewer and interviewee generate “contextual, linguistic, narrative,
and pragmatic” knowledge through their bidirectional, conversational interaction (p. 17-18). The
qualitative interview tool can go from highly exploratory to one that addresses specific
hypotheses. It can be less structured when little knowledge about a topic exists, or more

26
https://www.qualtrics.com/
27
https://www.zoho.com/survey/
28
https://www.surveymonkey.com/
67
structured with the same questions to compare responses among participants with similar
backgrounds.
The interview tool used in this research endeavor is more structured, as the pool of
respondents all share local governance as a common theme, given their background, experience,
and current professional role. As such, using questions with the same neutral wording to gather
the same areas of knowledge from each interviewee and then comparing the collection of
responses will yield valuable and analyzable data. Brinkmann (2013) suggests four steps to an
interview study: preparation, interviewing, analysis, and reporting. Preparation focuses on the
individual respondent’s lived experiences. Interviewing, as Brinkman (2013) suggests, creates
an “alignment between one’s research interest, interview style, and the kind of analysis that one
expects to carry out” (p. 60). Analysis, which can begin during the interviewing process, is the
attempt to understand and interpret the data. Finally, reporting is the process of writing up the
findings.
The interview tool used in this research endeavor is informal, as the researcher also
shares local governance and public administration as a common theme in terms of background
and professional experience. This informal nature, according to Turner (2010), allows the
researcher to develop a rapport with the interviewees creating opportunities to ask follow-up
questions for more profound and detailed insight. Furthermore, since interviewees may not
answer a specific question or may answer it in response to another question, the informal
character of the interview allows for flexibility. The goal, as Turner (2010) points out, is to
“obtain optimal responses from participants” (p. 758). Despite a level of informality inherent to
the interview itself, proper protocol, modern custom, and professional etiquette related to the
interaction with elected officials mandates a level of formality and respect in terms of greeting
68
(both orally and in written or electronic correspondence). As such, the researcher shall display at
all times proper and professionally acceptable behavior as it relates specifically to addressing
elected policymakers by their formal title (e.g., mayor, vice-mayor, mayor pro tem, supervisor,
councilman, or councilwoman) unless and until directed otherwise. This display of respect is not
only professional and appropriate, but it also serves to maintain an atmosphere of honor and high
regard for the interviewee’s elected status and his or her valuable expert opinion.
Interview Plan
As with any project, it is necessary to have a step-by-step plan in place that is flexible and
adaptable. Thus, the following properly constructed interview plan facilitated the successful
performance of the qualitative interviews associated with this research endeavor. Step one
involved obtaining approval to conduct human subject research from the university’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). This approval demonstrates USC’s commitment to the
protection of participants in all research conducted by the university and its students. Since the
research involves interviewing leaders and managers about their style and best practices in the
normal conduct of their profession, IRB approved an exempt study. This exemption means that
participation does not create greater than minimal risk (e.g., the likelihood of any physical or
psychological harm is no more than what a healthy person might encounter in his or her daily
life). The researcher presented each prospective research participant with an IRB-approved
informed consent document and requested that it be read, signed, and returned (a complete
version of the document is provided in Appendix A: USC IRB Informed Consent for Research).
The informed consent document served to notify all participants of the topic and process
associated with the interview and obtain their respective approval to participate. Printing,
signing, scanning, and emailing the executed document often sufficed. In other cases, using an
69
electronic signature mechanism, such as the one found in Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat,
proved useful and efficient. In five cases, using the cloud-based electronic signing solution,
DocuSign,
29
came in very handy. Finally, in a handful of instances, the participant printed the
last signature page, and then signed, dated, and snapped a photo to send back. In all cases,
however, every research participant accurately executed and returned their Informed Consent
document to the researcher. This action created the authorization to use all collected research.
Step two involved designing a shared set of eight questions that would serve both types
of respondents (e.g., the policymaking leadership subgroup and the public administrative
leadership subgroup). Initially, the intent was to conduct interviews via face-to-face visits at the
respondent’s place of work. With the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic and the
subsequent stay-at-home orders that ensued in early March of 2020, a temporary delay of in-
person human subject research took place in favor of a move toward teleconferencing (if
possible) or migration to an online virtual meeting modality (e.g., Zoom, as discussed
previously). This obstacle turned into an opportunity, as not physically meeting participants in
their work environment, which in some instances of qualitative interviewing might prove
valuable or necessary, resulted in no actual loss of validity or reliability in terms of research
value. The ability to “meet virtually” from the comfort of a home, workplace, or city hall office
without necessitating the long distance travel significantly enhanced participant outreach and
created a force multiplier effect, as stacking multiple interviews in a day and scheduling multiple
sets of interviews in a week resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of research participants
interviewed. The flexibility of not having to travel also made rescheduling a half dozen
interviews quick and easy when last-minute schedule conflicts or cancellations arose on the part

29
https://www.docusign.com/
70
of the research participants. Despite the small degradation in lost personal contact that an in-
person meeting might afford or the occasional technical “glitch” involving the Zoom platform,
internet connectivity, or personal computers, phones, tablets, web cameras, and ancillary devices
used by the researcher or participant, the value of technology cannot be understated, as it was a
key factor in the researcher’s ability to capture significantly more valuable and rich data than
would have otherwise been obtained. The number of research participants interviewed (e.g., 75
people from across 40 jurisdictions) exceeded even the most optimistic set of expectations (e.g.,
48 people from across 24 jurisdictions) by more than 56 percent. Furthermore, having 32
“complete” jurisdictions (e.g., cities where both an elected policymaker and the city manager
participated) is quite remarkable.
Step three involved designing a PowerPoint presentation that encapsulated the eight
interview questions along with a brief introduction to the researcher, the research topic, and why
the participant was so integral to the research endeavor. Appendix B: Interview PowerPoint
Shown to Participants via Zoom includes the entire presentation. In conjunction with this step, a
corresponding worksheet and associated interviewer script (used by the researcher) accompanied
the PowerPoint slides to facilitate electronic notetaking and recordation of the respondent’s
answers and rankings. This script served to keep the researcher on point, add structure to the
meeting, and help ensure commonality and consistency across all interviews. Appendix C:
Interview Worksheet includes a complete worksheet and script used with each interview. The
script uses ordinary/common language; this characteristic, according to Rolston (2018), is
essential. Encoding the worksheet before each interview by annotating the type of respondent
(e.g., elected policymaker or city manager) and the population quantile number and jurisdiction
number assigned to that city facilitated the coding process.
71
Furthermore, the combination of the PowerPoint and worksheet made it possible to not
only document the respondent’s answers, but also subsequently display their rankings “live” to
1) get immediate cross-verification and validation of accurate response recording, and 2) allow
the respondents to see their summarized rankings graphically should they desire to have a
modification made. Both feedback loops served to satisfy the goal that Turner (2010) suggests,
which is to obtain optimized responses. Finally, capturing electronically the participant’s
responses facilitated the ability for the researcher to type quietly during the interview rather than
handwrite and shuffle paper, and it also eliminated the need to have an extensive transcription
phase after each interview.
It is important to note that during a qualitative interview, the researcher must make a
concerted effort to be engaged but remain neutral (e.g., avoid response bias and emotional
reactions). Ralston (2018) recommends displaying understanding through body language,
response tokens, formulations (agreement, expansion, or correction of misunderstandings when
the interviewer formulates what the interviewee said) and asking the next question. Contrasting
the Zoom meeting modality with an in-person, face-to-face meeting, it is especially important to
keep Ralston’s points in mind, as the participant and the interviewer do not always fixate on the
other person’s video image (e.g., they tend to look away, look at the shared screen, or look at
themselves). Also, many people who take advantage of a virtual meeting modality do not take
into account what videographers and photographers refer to as “headroom,” which is the space
above a person’s head in a video or photographic frame. There should be enough space above a
person’s head and the top of the frame, but not an excessive amount, to create the most favorable
and appealing view. Also, the person should be in the center of the video frame. Next,
background, lighting, and clothing color can be an issue, especially if it is visually noisy, too
72
bright or too dark, or distracting. Finally, the camera angle can be an issue when it is not level
with the person’s head. Leveraging prior experience as a professional videographer, the
researcher sought to optimize the experience for the participants by using a chromatic green
drape to allow for an optimized virtual background of the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy
building along with ideal use of headroom. Figure 12 depicts what each participant saw during
the interview in addition to the shared-screen PowerPoint slides.

Figure 12. Zoom Interview Video Example
Step four involved determining a representative sample of cities for inclusion in the
research study. The next section describes the process of sample city selection.
Sample City Selection
Since the number of local governments within the U.S. is far too large of a population to
negotiate effectively, this research concentrates on a much more manageable population of local
governments, specifically, the incorporated municipalities of the State of California, which
according to the U.S. Census Bureau number 482.
30
Appendix D: Incorporated California Cities
by Population Quantiles provides a complete listing of each California city ordered from smallest

30
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
73
to largest by its 2010 U.S. Census Bureau population using six “equal count” classes or
quantiles. Figure 13 below illustrates these 482 cities divided into 6 “nearly” equal population
quantiles (e.g., 80 cities each, with quantiles 3 and 6 each having one extra city).

Figure 13. California Incorporated Cities Using Six Population Quantiles
In an ideal world, one might look to statistics to help determine a representative sample
size (n) using the formula:
74
n
z
∗p∗
1p e
1 z
∗p∗
1p e
∗N
With an appropriate confidence level (α) of 95 percent, a margin of error (e) of 5 percent, a
population proportion (p) of 50 percent, and population size (N) equal to 482, the resultant
sample size (n) equals 214, where:
z = 1.96 when the confidence level (α) is 95 percent
p = 0.5 (50 percent population proportion expressed as a decimal)
N = 482 (population size of California incorporated jurisdictions)
e = 0.05 (5 percent margin of error expressed as a decimal value)

Unfortunately, it is not practical to use a default population proportion (p) of 50 percent.
Based on the nature of the interview questions, it is not possible to estimate an appropriate value
for population proportion at all. Complicating matters is the reality that 482 jurisdictions are not
the true population size that counts since the research method seeks to interview elected
policymakers (one, but possibly more than one) and the senior-most appointed official (e.g., the
city manager or city administrator) from a selected jurisdiction. As such, if the population
expanded to include all elected policymakers of the 482 jurisdictions plus the senior-most
appointed official, the total population would likely be close to or over 3,000 (e.g., the number of
elected policymakers in a jurisdiction is usually five; adding one city manager would suggest that
the value at the low-end is six times 482 jurisdictions, which equals 2,892, but some larger
jurisdictions have 7, 9, or even 15 elected policymakers). Also, all of this says nothing of the
impracticality of reaching out to 217 jurisdictions with the hope of interviewing at least one
elected policymaker and the city manager (e.g., conducting 434 interviews would likely take 12
to 18 months to accomplish assuming everyone participated). Therefore, it is safe to say that the
statistical method of determining a sample size is impractical.
75
Since evaluating the population of California cities statistically does not aid in
determining a representative sample, looking at specific and worthwhile criteria when selecting a
valuable subset (e.g., a representative sample) of these cities might be better. These criteria
might include the following:
1. City corporate/legal structure (e.g., general law city versus a charter city).
2. Form of government (e.g., council‐manager versus mayor‐council).
3. Part‐time versus full-time city council.
4. Use and extent of contract services (more than 50 percent or less than 50 percent).
Furthermore, having the representative sample generated randomly based upon a certain number
of cities in each population quantile may also prove useful. Next, given that California is an
expansive state from a geographic perspective, having a balance between northern-based,
central-based, and southern-based cities along with rural cities and urban cities are also valuable
considerations. Finally, many highly reliable polls and surveys use a representative sample size
of only a few hundred or a few thousand respondents or participants to generalize the thoughts
and perspectives of a population often many orders of magnitude larger when the expectation of
variance is very low. Even then, a multitude of external issues can weigh in on whether the
sample size is a valid representation of the whole. As such, using a bottom-up approach may
yield a solution to the quandary.
Beginning from the premise that there is a need to control the scope and practicality of
this research endeavor, it is likely best to focus on the 80 or 81 cities in each of the six
population quantiles. There is no even distribution between cities geographically within the
quantiles, and practically speaking (pre-pandemic, at least), attempting to travel all over the state
to get one-third of the sample cities from Northern California, one-third of the sample cities from
76
Central California, and one-third of the sample cities from Southern California would be far too
costly. Furthermore, being an unknown researcher from one geographic area seeking voluntary
participation of busy elected policymakers and city managers from distant geographic areas only
exacerbates the issue. Consequently, in the absence of a recognized entity sponsoring or actively
promoting the research endeavor and when the researcher is outside his sphere of influence and
localized credibility, it is likely that existing personal and professional relationships coupled with
referrals from participants will serve as the primary generator for voluntary participation.
Therefore, using a bottom-up approach and leveraging a virtual meeting modality may
yield a partial solution to the quandary. By focusing instead on the six population quantiles,
locating 4 to 6 jurisdictions within each quantile (e.g., 24 to 36 jurisdictions in total, amounting
to approximately 48 to 72 research participants) will likely yield highly valuable data while still
being practical and achievable. While overly optimistic, this research pool represents 5 percent
to 7.5 percent of the 482 incorporated jurisdictions in California. Having too many jurisdictions
could lead to redundancy and difficulty in obtaining participation, while having too few
jurisdictions overlooks valuable participant viewpoints on central aspects of the research. Future
or continued research might leverage a state-recognized or nationally recognized entity (e.g., the
League of California Cities,
31
the National League of Cities,
32
the International City/County
Management Association,
33
Institute for Local Government,
34
etc.) to sponsor the effort to
significantly enlarge the sample size and promote increased participation including jurisdictions
outside the state of California.

31
https://www.cacities.org/index.jsp
32
https://www.nlc.org/
33
https://icma.org/
34
https://www.ca-ilg.org/
77
When selecting the cities within each quantile, there is still an issue of practicality as it
relates to obtaining voluntary participation. Potential respondents often neglect unsolicited and
unincentivized requests leaving gaps in data acquisition. In-person meetings can be even more
problematic to arrange and maintain given complications inherent with busy respondent
schedules coupled with last-minute cancellations; this is especially true with public officials.
Adding a 50-to-75-mile, one-way travel requirement due to the geographic location of the
sample cities makes an already tenuous situation even more complex, costly, and unwieldy.
Finally, toss in a global pandemic (e.g., COVID-19) that brought with it an unprecedented
nationwide shutdown beginning in early March of 2020 coupled with statewide stay-at-home
orders forcing the closure of nearly every governmental office for nearly four months all but
destroyed the ability to meet with prospective respondents in-person and put an unparalleled
burden on local government elected and appointed officials. Finally, if the COVID-19 pandemic
alone was not enough to derail any research effort during this unprecedented time in history,
rising social tensions in late May of 2020 that erupted across the nation in the form of mass
protests and civil unrest, which included violence and mayhem, left most municipal governments
doing everything they could just to maintain public safety and safely support core operations. As
such, while the primary objective was to maintain a balanced spread across the six population
quantiles, the scope of the representative sample of cities for this research endeavor was
necessarily narrowed to mostly jurisdictions within the Southern California region except for the
city of Pismo Beach and the city/county of San Francisco. It is important to note that the city of
San Francisco has a “strong mayor”
35
form of government where an elected mayor serves as the

35
https://www.nlc.org/forms-of-municipal-government
78
chief executive officer. With a consolidated city-county government,
36
San Francisco’s eleven-
member Board of Supervisors
37
act in both the capacity of a county board and as a city council.
San Francisco is the only consolidated city-county government in California.
38
The highest-
ranking appointed official is a city administrator who oversees the internal administration.
Represented Sample of California Cities
To include two experts (e.g., at least one elected policymaker and the city manager) from
24 to 36 jurisdictions, requests for participation were sent to multiple prospective participants in
42 jurisdictions (e.g., seven jurisdictions in each of the six population quantiles), as
representatives of some jurisdictions might not participate. Furthermore, since the initial desire
was to have at least one elected policymaker (e.g., a mayor, vice-mayor, mayor pro tempore,
supervisor, or councilmember) and the chief appointed official (e.g., a city manager, city
administrator, town manager, or city chief executive officer) from each jurisdiction, it was
expected that one or the other of those people contacted might decline, be unavailable, or be too
busy to participate. Conversely, there was an expectation that in a handful of instances, multiple
elected policymakers from the same jurisdiction might agree to participate, creating an overlap.
To guarantee the anonymity of each research participant and his or her responses, the
representative sample of cities omits participant names. It only includes the jurisdiction name
and where it falls among the population quantiles. Appendix E: Representative Sample of the
38 California Cities lists the jurisdictions (e.g., 7.88 percent of the total number of incorporated
jurisdictions in California) that participated in this research endeavor. As mentioned previously,

36
San Francisco Charter: Article I: Existence and Powers of the City and County, Section 1.100. Name and
Boundaries. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
37
San Francisco Charter: Article II: Legislative Branch, Section 2.100 Composition and Salary.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
38
https://www.nlc.org/list-of-consolidated-city-county-governments
79
from these cities, 73 individuals voluntarily participated in an interview (e.g., 41 elected
policymakers and 32 appointed officials). Finally, of the 38 California jurisdictions that
participated, 32 cities had both an elected policymaker and the chief appointed official
participate (denoted as a “complete jurisdiction”). Chapter 5: Analysis and Findings provides a
much more detailed analysis and breakdown of the participating jurisdictions including the one
elected policymaker each from two out-of-state jurisdictions who also participated (e.g., Sesser,
Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio as shown in Appendix F: Cities Outside of California), bringing
the total number of research participants to 75 and the total number of jurisdictions represented
to 40. It is noteworthy that positive responses to requests to participate in the research study
were much higher than expected especially given both the impact of the global COVID-19
pandemic and the social unrest that gripped the nation during the second and third quarters of
2020. From the vantage point of the experts who participated, this ultra-high response rate,
coupled with direct feedback demonstrating obvious excitement to participate before, during, and
after the interviews, are clear testaments of the value and necessity of this type of research.
With the representative sample size of the population defined, the next item of business
was to construct a detailed, color-coded spreadsheet workbook containing multiple
interconnected worksheets. One worksheet contained the cities selected for research using
multiline rows with columns containing space for participant information, city information,
follow-up date/interview date (this field tracked the various communications between each
prospective participant), tracking of Informed Consent documents until signed versions were
received, and notes to the researcher. A second worksheet contained similar city and participant
data as the first worksheet but included a multitude of columns used to record and tally
participant responses and rankings. This structure allowed for the efficient and multilateral
80
compilation of the results, including the creation of various charts and graphs. This dynamic and
evolving tool served as a principal guidebook, progress register, and project chronicle throughout
the entire research process.
Once all materials were complete and ready for use, it was highly valuable to pilot the
interview process. The researcher’s doctoral advisor and dissertation chair, who also serves as
an elected city council member for more than 15 years, piloted the interview. While his
responses could contribute to the findings, their exclusion is intentional to avoid any bias or
skewing of the data given his intimate knowledge of the researcher’s topic, interview design, and
research process.
The pilot process resulted in minor adjustments to the interview technique and materials.
Once complete, prospective interviewees received invitations to participate (Appendix H:
Sample Email Invitation to Participate provides a sample of the customized and personal
correspondence sent to each prospective participant via email). Once a prospective participant
agreed to be interviewed, a follow-up email was sent, which included the aforementioned
informed consent document with a request that it be read, executed, and returned; any potential
questions were addressed beforehand via email. The data gathering process via interviews
progressed over 75 days, involving 62.5 hours of interviews.
As mentioned, the interview process involved a qualitative study where experts in local
governance (e.g., elected leaders and chief public administrators) provided their lived
experiences as it relates to the framework building blocks and subcomponents, which included
using a forced ranking (e.g., “1” was considered most important to the participant and “4” was
considered least important to the participant) relative to the component’s importance to good
governance as the respondents see it from their unique vantage point as leaders of their specific
81
jurisdiction. When this extensive process was complete and the results compiled, analysis of the
data took place to determine if a pathway exists to establish a minimum set of ingredients, a
desirable set of ingredients, and an optimal set of ingredients that might form a scale or
continuum for the framework.
Regarding qualitative interviews, however, it is understood that some pitfalls exist
following these methods, as participants may choose not to tell the truth, as they may believe that
accurate input might harm their personal and organizational reputations. Furthermore,
participants may attempt to provide “textbook” answers or “politically correct” responses rather
than share their true feelings. To help mitigate this potential drawback, instructions to
respondents at the beginning of the interview included the following: 1) There are no right or
wrong answers; 2) textbook or academic responses are not necessary; 3) the Zoom interview will
not be recorded or shared with anyone; and 4) there will be no linkage between the respondent
and his or her responses (e.g., it will be completely anonymous). Using this approach, virtually
every respondent could freely express themselves without worry, which not only leads to a richer
set of responses but also a more realistic view of the topic of local governance. The next chapter
describes in detail the analysis and data evaluation process of the lived experiences captured
during the interview phase.

82
Chapter 5: Analysis and Findings
With a solid understanding of the methodology and methods used within this research
endeavor coupled with the completion of the qualitative research process (e.g., the qualitative
interviewing that sought the lived experiences of the experts), the next step is to perform an
analysis and determine findings. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the noun
analysis (generally) as follows:
a. A detailed examination or study of something so as to determine its nature,
structure, or essential features. Also: the result of this process; a detailed
examination or report; a particular interpretation or formulation of the
essential features of something.
b. The action or process of carrying out such a detailed examination; the
methodical or systematic investigation of something complex in order to
explain or understand it.
These definitions suggest that the word analysis involves conducting a logical evaluation seeking
to understand or comprehend it. Delving deeper, eighteenth-century philosopher Pierre Nicole
(1625-1695), in his work entitled La Logique ou l’Art de penser, translated as Logic or the Art of
Thinking, discussed the idea of analysis. He said (as translated into English by Jill Buroker),
“Now analysis consists primarily in paying attention to what is known in the issue we want
to resolve. The entire art is to derive from this examination many truths that can lead us to
the knowledge we are seeking” (Arnauld & Nicole, 1996, pp. 236-237).
Nicole’s notion of analysis brings to light two essential attributes that emphasize the
value of this effort. First, there is “paying attention to what is known in the issue” (Arnauld
& Nicole, 1996, p. 236). This perspective sets the focus on what is observable, recognizable,
and identifiable. This research effort involves a close examination of 1) the responses given
by the experts to each question, 2) the specific rankings each expert provided, and 3) the
rationales and thought processes given as to why each participant chose the ordering they
83
did. Second, the reference to analysis as an “art” whose goal is to examine “many truths that
can lead us to the knowledge we are seeking” is both insightful and profound, as it points to
the pursuit of knowledge and knowing as an art (Arnauld & Nicole, 1996, p. 237). Much
like painting is an art done with inspiration, imagination, and creativity, the art of knowledge
acquisition involves vision, resourcefulness, and innovation, which leads to the advancement
of the practice—the ultimate goal.
Introduction
The qualitative interview portion of this research endeavor, excluding the pilot interview,
spanned 75 days and encompassed 62.5 hours of actual interview time. Its start was negatively
impacted, like most everything in the world, by the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic that
resulted in a near-complete shutdown of the entire nation beginning in early March of 2020 and
covering more than four months. As the United States reeled from the health, social, and
economic shocks brought on by the pandemic and subsequent stay-at-home orders imposed by
state and local governments to slow down the spread of the novel coronavirus, public and private
entities slowly adjusted to new methods of operation. Despite fits and starts along the way, the
ability to adapt and continue moving forward demonstrates the ingenuity of the human mind to
always seek solutions and the resolve of the human spirit in the face of adversity. Specifically,
the work-from-home and remote work modalities for non-essential job functions created
advantages and disadvantages for impacted individuals. The need to conduct in-person, face-to-
face interviews immediately halted in favor of a move toward teleconferencing or video-based
conferencing.
As mentioned previously, the qualitative research platform of this endeavor necessarily
transitioned to a video-based conferencing platform via Zoom, and that shift brought with it three
84
distinct advantages. First, eliminating the need to physically travel to and from a local
jurisdiction’s city hall allowed the ‘stacking’ of interviews (e.g., scheduling multiple interviews
per day with a peak of 19 in one particular week, including the weekend). Second, video
conferencing made it possible to reschedule meetings on-the-fly when unforeseen circumstances
in a participant’s chaotic schedule arose, forcing a last-minute cancellation. Third, the use of
technology significantly enhanced the interview and data capture processes. From the
researcher’s vantage point, the use of a script, the benefit of an electronic worksheet for
notetaking, and the ability to reaffirm the participant’s rankings with a “live,” on-screen display
during the interview created a highly consistent and streamlined experience. As one mayor who
participated early in the research process succinctly put it at the end of her interview, “you
appear to have this [interview] down to a science.” While that was the intent, without the ability
to design efficiency into the process and leverage the technology tools available, the interviews
would not have been as polished or professional as they were.
Despite the methodical and structured way in which the interviews took place, the
atmosphere was informal, pleasant, and very congenial. The interaction with every participant
was thoroughly rewarding and deeply valuable on multiple levels. Even the participants who at
first appeared uninterested quickly became highly engaged in the process. Early in the research
process, one mayor volunteered to reach out to five of her colleagues (all mayors) at other
jurisdictions to solicit their participation on the researcher’s behalf. A comparable situation
happened with a city manager. These genuinely kind and supportive actions resulted in a
worthwhile expansion of participation, which in turn led to additional involvement through a
cascade effect. The only slightly negative issue was the scheduling process itself. In two cases,
city managers happily agreed to participate, but repeated scheduling conflicts with no resolution
85
resulted in the loss of their respective participation through no fault of their own. In two other
cases, repeated requests went unanswered.
The next section discusses the interview tool itself, how it was designed and structured,
the intent behind each of the questions, and high-level perspectives from the pool of participants
who took part in the study.
Interview Design Analysis
In the classic work Hamlet by William Shakespeare (written circa 1601-1602
39
), Lord
Polonius says to Hamlet, “Though this be madness, yet there is method in't” (Act 2, Scene 2,
Line 1307).
40
This Shakespearean line is thought of as the origin of the common idiom, ‘a
method to (or behind) the madness,’ which often speaks to an underlying structure, organization,
or intent to something that may not be readily apparent on its surface. As such, it is valuable at
this stage to delve into the structure and design of the interview itself to shed light on the
rationale and underlying objectives behind this useful research tool as an aid to its analysis.
Interview Duration
The interview design considered that most public officials are remarkably busy and
would be unlikely to spend a great deal of time participating in an activity such as this. A
primary concern from the onset was whether elected policymakers would even agree to
participate. Similarly, it is typical for city managers to delegate these types of requests to their
assistant city managers or deputy city managers. Since delegation was not an option for this
research endeavor, careful thought went into making the process as seamless as possible. Given

39
https://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/about-the-play/dates-and-sources
40
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html and
https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=hamlet&Scope=entire&pleasewait=1
&msg=pl#a2,s2
86
the added burden of the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders that began in early March
of 2020 as well as the protesting and civil unrest that emerged toward the end of May 2020, the
expectation was that most prospective participants would decline, and those that did agree would
not spend a great deal of time participating.
Consequently, the initial interview duration focused on 30 minutes per session, allowing
the participants to “drive” the interview based upon the depth and breadth of their responses.
The more engaged and in-depth participants were with their answers, the longer the duration.
There were no follow-up questions outside of an occasional request to elaborate when a response
was short.
This 30-minute duration significantly underestimated the average interview duration,
which was 50 minutes, as previously stated. This scenario speaks directly to the elevated level of
thoughtful engagement from the participants. Even more surprising was the overwhelmingly
positive response to participate. From the pool of 42 California jurisdictions (seven in each
quantile), only four jurisdictions did not respond. Each of the 38 California jurisdictions had at
least one elected policymaker participate, which is a participation rate of 100 percent.
Concerning city managers, 32 participated out of 36 contacted, which is a participation rate of
88.8 percent. Since two jurisdictions were referrals from other elected policymakers at the end
of the research window, there was insufficient time to reach out to those two city managers and
attempt to schedule interviews. Overall, the response and participation in this research endeavor
exceeded every expectation.
Interview Tool
The interview tool is comprised of eight questions, the third of which is compound and
uses a set of graphics to request a group of forced rankings (e.g., from “1” to “4” with “1” being
87
the highest). The interview intended to obtain the participant’s thoughts and ideas based upon
their practical understanding and insight into the topic of local governance from their unique
perspective as a municipal leader of their specific jurisdiction. For elected policymakers, being
specific to their jurisdiction is not usually as important as it is for city managers who may work
in various capacities across multiple jurisdictions during their careers. As such, the request to
focus on their current jurisdiction occurs before the first question. Multiple times, city managers
(and two elected policymakers with experience in other jurisdictions) specifically brought up this
fact when answering the questions by pointing out that their answers might have been different
had they been asked these questions during their respective tenures at previous cities. This
situation is useful, as it supports the premise that while jurisdictions often share commonalities,
all have levels of uniqueness.
Believing that a participant’s natural inclination would be to give an authoritative or
“textbook” answer, the researcher refrained from revealing the questions ahead of time, which
was intentional, despite four requests from participants to view them beforehand to ‘be better
prepared.’ Participants who inquired about getting the questions before the interview received
the same response that ‘none of the questions are controversial in any way and that there would
be no link between them and their answers.’ This reassurance curtailed all four requests. While
valuable, the spontaneity aspect of the interview does introduce an unknown and possibly
unbounded variable based upon any number of issues affecting the participant at that specific
moment (e.g., a pressing public safety issue the municipal leader might be dealing with may
artificially inflate or deflate the value of that topic at that given moment). In any event, the
desire to get spontaneous and unrehearsed responses across the board was essential to the study.
Also, when one municipal leader requested participation on behalf of the researcher, they were
88
kindly instructed not to ‘give away any of the secrets’ to help maintain the integrity of the
interview and its questions. During their respective interviews, none of the referred participants
appeared to have any foreknowledge of the interview questions other than the high-level topic of
governance, which was disclosed in the USC informed consent document and as part of the
introductory email correspondence. Consequently, all participants began with the same
understanding of the nature and intent of the interview.
In addition to spontaneity, there was an expectation that a portion of the participants may
have a more relevant background than other participants in public administration, public policy,
political science, or a related field. The only qualification for participation in the study was
current service to a jurisdiction as an elected member of the city council (or the Board of
Supervisors in the case of San Francisco) or as a city manager/city administrator. There was no
pre-interview questionnaire, and none of the questions requested that participants provide their
background, education, or professional experience during the interview (although more than a
quarter of the respondents voluntarily provided background-related information in some fashion
as part of their responses).
The goal of the first question (e.g., How would you define governance?) was to ascertain
and capture a level of pre-existing knowledge or familiarity with the topic of governance. It also
served to trigger the thought process in terms of the role participants play in their jurisdiction as
an elected or appointed leader. More than half of the respondents made an opening comment,
displayed a nonverbal cue, or said something within their first answer that this was a ‘good
question,’ ‘tough question to start with,’ or that it was ‘thought-provoking.’
The goal of the second question (e.g., What does it mean to you for a local jurisdiction to
have good governance?), which naturally follows the first question, was to determine and
89
document participant thoughts and ideas related to running government well or ensuring a good
operation. Like the first question, it also served to narrow the respondent’s thinking indirectly
toward whether he or she felt his or her jurisdiction was doing well at governing. More than a
quarter of the respondents mentioned an example of good governance to demonstrate their
understanding of the concept; the example was generic or related to their specific jurisdiction.
The value of having pre-existing knowledge on governance versus not having it (or at
least not articulating it as part of a response) proved valuable in three distinct ways. First, when
respondents possessed a strong pre-existing background on the topic of governance, their
responses were more in-depth and more critical, which is highly valuable to the research.
Second, when respondents did not have an extensive background in the topic of governance or
did not articulate it as part of their answers, the questions appeared to the participants (from both
their verbal and nonverbal cues) to be more educational and enlightening. This scenario is also
very worthwhile because the heightened interest level served to garner added interest in the topic
(and the interview in general), creating a higher degree of involvement that was easily
observable by the depth and expressiveness of the respondents. Third, in all interviews except
three, respondents reacted favorably or very favorably to the topic, the framework, and the
overall importance of both to the practice. One very experienced policymaker from a very large
jurisdiction said at the end of his interview, “the exercise you just put me through was personally
helpful to me, and I appreciate it.” This elevated level of enthusiasm associated with
participating was unexpected but very pleasing, as it served to demonstrate the relevant nature of
the material and its importance to public officials even experienced ones. Incidentally, the three
participants who did not appear favorable or enthusiastic also had noticeably short interview
times, averaging 18 minutes in total duration as compared to the average interview duration of 50
90
minutes. Across all 75 interviews, the longest duration was 128 minutes, and the shortest
duration was 14 minutes.
The goal of the third question, which is a multipart question where each of the four
building blocks was graphically shown separately to the participant, was to obtain a forced
ranking (e.g., no ties allowed) of the subcomponents where a “1” represented the greatest degree
of importance and a “4” represented the lowest degree of importance from the participant’s
unique point of view within his or her jurisdiction recognizing that the closeness of the four
subcomponents, it is interesting to note that one elected policymaker from a medium-to-large
jurisdiction chose not to rank three of the subcomponents of one of the building blocks. When
asked to please try, the participant cordially articulated a personal belief that the three
subcomponents were not a responsibility of local government, and therefore ranking them did
not apply. A second elected policymaker from a very large jurisdiction said on three occasions
(in jest), “I do this under protest” to signify the difficulty in ranking specific subcomponents.
Once each participant viewed, ranked, and commented on the four building blocks and
their respective subcomponents, the tallied values appeared seamlessly to the participant for
cross-verification and validation. This feedback loop had three distinct benefits. First, the
feedback loop provided the participant with an opportunity to see his or her rankings displayed in
totality, which in three-quarters of the cases generated unsolicited additional comments. Second,
the feedback loop provided an opportunity for participant self-reflection and an opportunity to
change his or her rankings. Though minor, a participant’s desire to modify their rankings
occurred in four cases. Each time, the respondents justified their rationale for making a change,
and each time a modification occurred, it involved switching a second, third, or fourth-ranked
subcomponent and not a number “1” ranked subcomponent. Third, the feedback loop provided
91
an opportunity for direct and immediate critique, which served to prevent errors during the data
capture process. This scenario occurred in three cases—two instances were typographical errors,
and one instance was due to an unstable internet connection, which resulted in misinterpreting
the respondent. It is worthwhile to note that the Zoom meeting platform and associated internet
bandwidth supported every interview with only an occasional issue creating a marginal impact
on the interview experience. In three cases, technical difficulties forced multiple restarts of the
Zoom meeting platform during the interview or created difficulty in hearing or seeing the audio
and video. None of the technical issues, however, caused unmanageable problems that might
threaten the interview or data collection process.
After the cross-verification and validation step, the participant’s highest priority
subcomponents from each building block (e.g., the four number “1” rankings) were displayed on
the framework graphic (see Figure 11. Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local
Governance). The respondent then had to rank order these four subcomponents using the same
“1” to “4” scale. As the participants disclosed their rankings, the researcher updated the numbers
on the slide accordingly, which created another cross-verification and validation feedback loop.
It is interesting to note that the perceived effort level expended by the participants to rank order
their number “1” choice subcomponents was much less than when they ranked the
subcomponents of each building block; this was expected.
The goal of the fourth question (e.g., Is there anything you would like to add to the notion
of good governance and how you see its importance to running a successful local jurisdiction?)
was to determine if the process of going through the building blocks and their subcomponents
inspired any further thoughts about governance and its importance from the respondent’s unique
perspective. In all but eight responses, participants elaborated on the topic of governance, using
92
terms, ideas, and concepts related to the building blocks and subcomponents just presented.
Though not directly a goal of the interview per se, from an educational standpoint, these
collective responses demonstrate each of the six main categories of Bloom’s Original Taxonomy
(e.g., knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation),
41
which lends
credibility to the value of the framework as an educational tool.
The goal of the fifth question (e.g., If I were to develop a checklist, primer, or practical
guide for effective local governance, would it be of interest to you as a local government
leader?) was to get feedback on the practical application of this research from three distinct
vantage points. First, a central hypothesis of this research is that elected leaders come from a
host of diverse backgrounds. These experiences might be governance-related or completely
disjointed from anything related to the topic public or private sector. Regardless, after their
swearing-in ceremony, an expectation exists by the constituency that the elected policymakers
are to govern and to govern well. The elected participants in this research have varying degrees
of experience serving on their respective city councils from those recently elected (e.g., less than
one year) to those having already served multiple terms in office. All but two elected
policymakers indicated they would find it particularly useful to have such a checklist, primer, or
practical guide. Eleven elected policymakers said that they wish they had received such a
handbook or “how-to” manual when they first took office. Incidentally, one of the respondents
who expressed that a guidebook would not be useful to him qualified his response by saying he
already possessed a strong business background and had his way of doing things. He felt that
any practical guide that only focused on the way the government mostly operates would not be

41
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-
taxonomy/#:~:text=Familiarly%20known%20as%20Bloom%27s%20Taxonomy,Analysis%2C%20Synthesis%2C%
20and%20Evaluation.
93
helpful. He continued by sharing his somewhat negative sentiment toward city government as it
relates to the lack of a strategic plan, little-to-no innovation to outsource, and the restrictions
often inherent to flexibility and cost containment often associated with a unionized workforce.
This response was keenly valuable, as it will influence the future development of any potential
practical guide. The second respondent who expressed that a guidebook would not be useful said
so partially in jest by saying, “it is because I get 800 emails a day.” This perspective suggests
that any future practical guide must be valuable enough to warrant reading it, considering the
extremely busy and often chaotic schedule elected policymakers and city managers typically
have.
The goals of the sixth and seventh questions (e.g., Do you think expanding this research
to all 482 incorporated jurisdictions in California would be valuable? -and- What about
expanding it outside the state of California?), which were asked together as a compound
question, were two-fold. The first goal was to determine how respondents indirectly felt about
the representative sample size (e.g., 24-36 jurisdictions), as the question was framed by first
reiterating this research objective and then suggesting future, potentially sponsored research.
Two-thirds of the participants said that attempting to expand the research to all 482 incorporated
jurisdictions in California would be too laborious and create significant redundancy rendering the
effort of little value. The remaining one-third of the participants said it would be good to have
the most data possible to get the best perspective, recognizing that it might be difficult to get
every jurisdiction to participate in one way or the other. Furthermore, 18 of the participants
qualified their answers by summarizing various attributes that should be taken into consideration
such as general law cities versus charter cities; level and use of contract services (e.g., the
amount of services done in-house versus contracted out); whether the mayor is elected at-large or
94
selected from among the city council members on a rotational basis; if there are represented
councilmanic districts or if councilmembers are elected at-large; the selection of a good cross-
section of Northern California cities, Central California cities, and Southern California cities; a
balance of rural cities versus urban cities; grouping similarly sized cities based upon population;
similarity of city revenue source breakdown; and a host of demographic and profile-specific
characteristics such as average citizen age, socioeconomic status, employment, education
attainment, property ownership, housing density, property values, percentage of undeveloped
land within the jurisdiction, etc. These responses were highly valuable, as they not only
validated areas of uniqueness thought to impact the framework, but they also introduced and
highlighted other areas to consider.
On the notion of expanding the research outside of California (question seven), a
multitude of respondents suggested that California is unique in both the way its cities govern and
the relationships between cities, counties, and the state. Three responses suggested that cities
outside the state of California might benefit from this research, as California often sets the
standard for how best to govern at the local level. Two elected policymakers and two city
managers pointed out the value of collaborating with other public officials outside the state, as
issues that come up outside California may also come up here. One specific example a city
manager mentioned was a belief that cities in Arizona know better how to deal with water-
related issues than cities in California, given the larger amount of desert weather and terrain.
Finally, a city manager of a very large jurisdiction pointed out that examining international cities
might also be very worthwhile based upon his experience participating in an international
working group of city manager-related officials. These responses were highly valuable, as they
solidified the need to expand the research within California and at least test the framework with
95
some jurisdictions outside the state to validate the core belief that central aspects of the
framework should be independent of geography and government structure/composition. In this
regard, two elected policymakers from two different cities outside of California participated in
the study. The input from Sesser, Illinois, and Willoughby, Ohio, serves as reference points but
is not incorporated into the California-specific results (see Out-of-State Jurisdictions later in this
chapter).
The goal of the eighth question (e.g., Is there anything else you would like to share on the
topics we have discussed today?) was to capture any final thoughts the participants might have.
In more than half of the cases, this question served as a de facto, ‘what did you think of the
interview?’ question. While not intended as such, the responses were very encouraging as it
relates to the general feelings and attitudes toward good governance, its importance to the
practice, and the value of providing this information to all elected policymakers, future elected
policymakers, city managers, and future city managers. In six cases, the respondents mentioned
the value of this research to the citizenry in terms of obtaining better civic engagement and a
higher degree of worthwhile involvement, all of which would likely lead to better, more
effective, and greater levels of informed civic oversight.
The next section analyzes the sample cities broken down by population quantile and
provides a general description of the participants who took part in the study.
Sample City and Participant Analysis
The relationships among the cities within each population quantile may shed light on
valuable aspects of the framework’s building blocks and their subcomponents. As such, it is
necessary to examine the cities within each population quantile to understand better their
similarities and dissimilarities. Also, having a perspective of the participants within each
96
population quantile is valuable when comparing the various participant responses. Finally, since
the primary objective is to maintain participant anonymity, the scope of the participant analysis
focuses only on high-level information.
Population Quantiles
When examining the 2010 U.S. Census population distribution of the 482 cities in
California, the average city population is 64,126 (e.g., 30,908,641 ÷ 482 = 64,126). This value is
misleading, however, as there are 353 jurisdictions with populations less than the average (e.g.,
73.2 percent) and 129 jurisdictions with populations that exceed the average (26.8 percent).
Looking at the first 458 cities (e.g., 95 percent of the total number of jurisdictions) ranked by
population from smallest to largest, the average city population is still only 40,202. Examining a
graph of the population distribution of all 482 cities exposes its power curve properties (see
Figure 14 below).

Figure 14. California Population Distribution from Smallest to Largest
97
Given the geometric properties of this population distribution and in an attempt to group
the cities as objectively and practically as possible, it is best to use an “equal count” method,
which creates six population quantiles. This situation results in population ranges (with group
names added) for the 482 California jurisdictions as shown in Table 2 below.
Population
Quantile
Group Name
Total Number
of Cities
2010 U.S. Census
Population Range
1 Small 80 112 - 7,275
2 Small-to Medium 80 7,275 - 15,525
3 Medium 81 15,525 - 29,000
4 Medium-to-Large 80 29,000 - 53,100
5 Large 80 53,100 - 89,730
6 Very Large 81 89,730 - 3,792,621
Table 2. California Cities Population Quantiles Using Equal Count Method
Narrowing the focus to the 38 sample cities that participated in this research study, Table 3
below lists the quantile-based average population for this subset of cities in comparison to the
average population of each quantile.
Population
Quantile
Group Name
Total Number
of Cities
Number of
Sample
Cities
Average
Population
of Sample
Cities
Average
Population of
Entire
Quantile
1 Small 80 6 3,210 3,475
2 Small-to Medium 80 7 10,591 10,825
3 Medium 81 6 19,511 22,092
4 Medium-to-Large 80 6 35,403 39,941
5 Large 80 6 66,584 68,370
6 Very Large 81 7 815,127 238,399
Table 3. Quantile-Based Average Population of Sample Cities
98
When compared at quantile-specific levels, the average population of the sample cities and the
average population of the entire quantile shows a greater degree of proximity than using a broad
average of all 482 jurisdictions. It is interesting to note that quantile 6 (e.g., the Very Large
cities) is still heavily skewed due to the immense population of the city of Los Angeles as
compared to all other cities in California. The population of Los Angeles accounts for 12.33
percent of the entire population of the state. It is greater than the sum of the populations of the
267 smallest cities in the state (55.4 percent of the cities in California). Incidentally, treating Los
Angeles as an outlier, the average population of the quantile 6 sample cities would be a more
realistic value of 318,878. Going one step further, if the top 4 highest-population cities (e.g., Los
Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco) became a group of “Extremely Large” cities,
the average of the remaining cities in quantile 6 would be 161,807. Finally, the 38 sample cities
represent a total 2010 Census population of 6,528,275, which is 21.22 percent of the state’s
population. For a complete breakdown of the sample cities, see Appendix E: Representative
Sample of the 38 California Cities. Also, Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities
provides high-level Census profiles for all 38 cities that participated as well as the two out-of-
state jurisdictions.
The following maps produced by QGIS,
42
which is a free and open-source Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) software, illustrate each of the six population quantiles. (Note:
Quantile 6 uses two separate maps for clarity since the size of Los Angeles overshadows its five
neighbors in Southern California, and San Francisco is in Northern California, requiring a full-
state view.)

42
https://www.qgis.org/en/site/
99

Figure 15. Quantile 1 Map (6 Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)

Figure 16. Quantile 2 Map (7 Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre, San Marino, Westlake
Village, and Pismo Beach)

100

Figure 17. Quantile 3 Map (6 Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)

Figure 18. Quantile 4 Map (6 Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)

101

Figure 19. Quantile 5 Map (6 Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)

Figure 20. Quantile 6 Map-A (5 Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, and Downey)

102

Figure 21. Quantile 6 Map-B (2 Cities)
(Los Angeles and San Francisco)

There are 58 incorporated counties in California.
43
The sample cities are part of in Los
Angeles County (33 cities out of 88 cities in total within the county);
44
Orange County (two
cities out of 34 cities in total within the county);
45
San Luis Obispo County (one city out of seven
cities in total within the county);
46
Riverside County (one city out of 28 cities in total within the
county);
47
and San Francisco, recognizing that the city and county of San Francisco operate as a
single consolidated government.

43
https://www.counties.org/californias-counties
44
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1043530_09-10CitiesAlpha.pdf
45
https://www.ocgov.com/about/infooc/links/oc/occities
46
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Home/Local-Cities,-Agencies,-and-Districts.aspx
47
https://countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/CitiesandNeighboringCommunities.aspx#gsc.tab=0
103
Participant Analysis
The design of the research study focused on two groups of participants—elected
policymakers (city council members and supervisors) and appointed leaders (e.g., city
managers/city administrators). Table 4 below lists the high-level breakdown of the participants
from the representative sample of California cities.
Participant Group Mayor
Vice-Mayor and
Mayor Pro
Tempore
Council Member
or Supervisor
Gender
Male Female
Policymakers (41) 21 8 12 23 18
City Managers (32) 28 4
Table 4. High-Level Breakdown of California Participants
It is interesting to note the higher-than-expected number of female participants (e.g., 44 percent)
among elected policymakers; examining participant responses based upon gender for this group
may yield valuable and insightful perspectives.
Out-of-State Jurisdictions
Given that the responses to question 7, which asked participants to share their thoughts
about expanding the research to jurisdictions outside the state of California, quickly began
leaning heavily in favor of seeking input from jurisdictions outside of California, it seemed
appropriate to solicit feedback from at least two out-of-state jurisdictions. Consequently, an
elected policymaker from the city of Sesser, Illinois, and an elected policymaker from the city of
Willoughby, Ohio, graciously offered to participate in this research. The section discussing the
findings of this study includes these out-of-state participant responses, which appear after the
California sample cities to maintain clarity. Table 5 below lists the population of each city as
well as the population quantile where each would fall, and Figure 22 and Figure 23 provide maps
of each out-of-state jurisdiction to provide location-specific information. Finally, as mentioned
104
previously, Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities includes Census profiles for
these two out-of-state jurisdictions toward the end of that appendix.
Population
Quantile
Jurisdiction
#
City, State
U.S. Census Population
(April 1, 2010)
1 7 Sesser, IL 1,931
3 7 Willoughby, OH 22,268
Table 5. Jurisdictions Outside California

Figure 22. Map of the City of Sesser, Illinois

105

Figure 23. Map of the City of Willoughby, Ohio

Strengths and Limitations
In any research paradigm, there are strengths and limitations (e.g., weaknesses). The goal
is to maximize or amplify the strengths and minimize or mitigate the weaknesses. In qualitative
research, specifically qualitative interviewing, such as the type employed in this study, the
researcher takes the position of an observer where he or she seeks to obtain elements of human
emotion, ideologies, behaviors, as well as personal and professional beliefs from the research
participants. The bidirectional nature of the interview can enhance the data capture process
when coupled with a well-constructed and efficient tool, like the one used in this endeavor.
Understanding the dynamic nature of the interview process is also essential in that the goal is to
obtain the “lived experiences” of the participants rather than right or wrong answers, “textbook”
responses, or simple “yes or no” replies. The research process gains validity when the researcher
has inherent knowledge and subject matter expertise in the specific area of research. As
mentioned previously, Reid et al. (2005) point out that the researcher becomes part of the process
by applying his or her domain-specific experience to data interpretation.
106
It is critical during personal contact with participants that the researcher continuously
maintains awareness of his or her inherent bias, which can be positive and negative. As a
positive, there is the notion of “pre-analysis,” which one might define as sifting through the data
being collected during the actual collection process to ascertain relationships, trends, address
research questions, and even begin to validate/invalidate hypotheses. Piñeiro and Rosenblatt
(2016) discuss in detail the value of having pre-analysis as part of the qualitative research design
process. This process of concurrent data pre-evaluation during the interviewing stage helps the
researcher formulate ideas, mechanisms, and methods for distilling what may amount to
considerable volumes of rich and valuable data.
As a negative, preconceptions, the building up of expectations, and the “cumulative effect
of discovery” must not invade subsequent interviews. One might consider the impact of
allowing the “cumulative effect of discovery” to invade upcoming interviews as being partially
analogous to constituting a serial meeting of elected officials in public government where
discussions with one elected policymaker are communicated directly or indirectly to other
policymakers of that jurisdiction leading to a potential violation of public meeting laws. In
California, Government Code Sections 54952.2(b)(1) and 54952.2(b)(2)
48
discuss how a local
agency employee or official may answer questions to provide information outside of a public
meeting provided he or she does not communicate the comments, positions, or intentions of the
legislative body to a majority of other members, potentially influencing a policy decision. While
the research areas being discussed here in no way impact public meeting laws, the notion of
allowing the conversations and communications from initial interviews to invade subsequent
ones introduces a significant bias that may invalidate the data collected. Active consideration of

48
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=54952.2.&lawCode=GOV
107
all these areas of concern went into the design and implementation of the interview process to
maximize the benefits and minimize (or eliminate) the detriments. Also, as mentioned
previously, transitioning from the intended in-person interview process to a virtual interview
environment via Zoom delivered significant benefits in terms of 1) eliminating the need to travel
to and from interviews, 2) allowing multiple interviews per day, and 3) permitting on-the-fly
changes to the schedule when unavoidable circumstances arose.
The limitations inherent to this research study involve sample city and participant
selection. In a perfect world, every elected policymaker and their city manager (e.g., six or more
individuals) from at least half the jurisdictions in the state balanced by geographical location,
size, demographics, form of government, and a host of other criteria would eagerly agree to
participate. Furthermore, in that perfect world, the researcher would have the ability to schedule
these 1,500 or so interviews to gather the expert input from all of them. The empirical value of
such an impressive study would be immense but require a team of interviewers and a timeframe
of six months to a year to accomplish. Sadly, this type of study is neither conceivable nor
practical in the real world, where one researcher has a limited window of time to accomplish his
or her mission. This situation does not account for the hindrances associated with accessing
local government leaders in regions outside the area of recognition of the researcher or the
academic institution. Regardless, there is an inherent weakness in the size and diversity of the
pool of participants in this research study, despite the remarkable and gracious participation of
the 75 respondents.
This overwhelming participation rate of 75 elected policymakers and city managers
across 40 jurisdictions (e.g., 38 in California and two outside the state) also introduced a curious
dilemma of sorts—a concurrent strength and weakness, which focuses on having an abundance
108
of useful, rich, and invaluable data. This brilliant qualitative research process involved capturing
62.5 hours of oral interviews, resulting in 10-12 worksheet pages of material for each of the 75
participants (e.g., 750-plus pages of narrative ranging from a few sentences per page to multiple,
very in-depth paragraphs per page among 1,200 pages of worksheets). To effectively filter and
distill each set of responses to the best combination of answers from elected policymakers and
city managers broken down by population quantile is a massive undertaking. To include every
one of them, while valuable as a glimpse of the lived experiences from 75 “expert” policymakers
and their chief appointed officials is far too much material to present (e.g., 100-plus pages), let
alone expect the reader to sort through and appreciate. These concerns, of course, say nothing
about the effort involved and the space taken up in providing a worthwhile analysis and reporting
of the forced rankings across multiple dimensions; a spreadsheet can help with compiling and
manipulating the data quantitatively, but the effort level and space constraints remain significant.
As such, to demonstrate the richness of the data collected during the extensive interview
process and still maintain a sense of practicality, the following section (subdivided by interview
question) provides a synopsis obtained from each group of participants within each quantile
supported by one to four specific responses from participants. This approach naturally groups
respondent answers based upon the population of his or her jurisdiction. Also, the separation of
responses into two sections (e.g., elected policymakers and city managers) serves to further
differentiate the two sets of answers. Finally, to establish and validate the magnitude and value
of the data, the responses from all 75 participants broken down by quantile appear for question 1.
A future project will leverage this substantial knowledgebase of lived experiences related to
municipal governance spoken directly from the experts in the field.
109
Study Findings
The presentation of the study’s findings uses both narrative summaries and graphs of
empirical rankings from multiple vantage points. This subsection concludes with a summary of
high-level findings.
Question 1
This open-ended question produced narrative responses from a single sentence to
multiple paragraphs. Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12
collectively summarize the participant responses (with limited editing only for clarity and
readability) to the question “How would you define governance?” There is one table per
quantile plus a table for the out-of-state participants. The responses in each column have a
random order (e.g., they are not in the order of the cities listed in the table’s title).
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
1. Looking out for the best interests of your
citizens and looking toward the financial
success of the city.
2. Governance is a system where the people
have delegated to their elected officials the
right to pass laws and ordinances that
everyone must comply with. In other
countries, it is kings and queens, but in our
country, we elect representatives. It is making
decisions that affect the populace.
3. Governance is defined as serving. The role of
a mayor or councilmember is service to the
community and its constituents to ensure the
community is kept safe and beautiful. It is not
oversight of the people; it is serving the
people. The council creates laws, ordinances,
etc., that it must govern over; it is serving the
constituency.
1. Governance is complicated. It involves
multiple levels. There is policymaking—what
types of decisions you make and how they
will impact the community. There is the
practical application of governance—
administration of the rules and use of taxpayer
resources to provide services to the
community collectively that they cannot do
themselves.
2. It is the process where policy is created, and
things are accomplished.
3. It is defined as establishing order.
Governance gets attacked by the constituency
all the time, and establishing order helps
things take place properly.
110
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
4. It is the team, group, or person who
participates in the management of a city—
taking care of what needs to happen. There is
alignment with the community and the needs
of the day-to-day business of running a city.
5. There is an obvious election by the residents.
It is providing leadership to the population
that you report to and that elects you. You
must separate yourself from conflicts of
interest or perceived conflicts of interest.
Listening to all sides is essential, even if you
think they are wrong, they think they are
right. Governance is a very personal
experience for an elected official. We run
into people at the grocery store that we may
have to make a policy decision that will
negatively impact them.
6. As elected officials, we set policy. We have a
city manager who takes what we enact and
implements it. It is looking out for the good
of everyone in the community, not
individuals. It is how we make everything
work.
4. Governance is the day-to-day operations of
the city. It must include all the parties who
interact with one another: the city council,
administration, the citizens. The
administration’s role is to keep it all together.
5. Governance is policymakers giving their
policies to staff to implement. As a big
proponent of the council-manager form of
government, it is best to look at Woodrow
Wilson’s 1889 treatise on the
politics/administration dichotomy.
Table 6. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 1 Participants
Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Elected Policymakers (8 Respondents) City Managers (7 Respondents)
1. Governance is community leadership. It is
taking into account the often-disparate needs
of several groups of people and reaching a
decision on what is “best” for the majority,
which may not be the most popular choice.
Governance is also leadership by example—
by being upfront and saying, “I’m here, this is
what I am doing, and this is what you can
expect.”
1. Governance is the practice of managing a
political institution and its resources in the
best interests and outcomes of the people and
the government.
2. Governance is the role of the elected officials,
each of them working together and
collaborating to find consensus and provide
direction to the organization and the city
manager. The city manager and staff have a
role, but governance is primarily the role of
the elected.
111
Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Elected Policymakers (8 Respondents) City Managers (7 Respondents)
2. Governance is making policy and giving
direction to the city. Taking input from the
citizens and using your knowledge and
judgment to move everyone forward.
3. It is a methodology used to ensure credibility
and oversight, and it is not limited to
municipal situations; it is an oversight
function in the private sector as well.
4. It is the identification and engagement of
resources to keep the constituents safe and
create a good living and working experience.
5. It is the process of ensuring that those who are
governed have a voice in the management of
the local government. Management is
important; we try to give the voters and
taxpayers the most for their money—public
safety, infrastructure, sidewalks, streets, and
whatever else they are willing to pay to have.
Governance is putting it all together for those
people who live in the municipality. It is
making sure the voters are represented and
giving value to the taxpayers.
6. Governance is effective oversight. Coming
from the private sector, governance is having
a board of directors who collectively need
valuable information and helpful feedback to
ensure things get done the right way.
7. Public service—it is the high-level
policymaking and strategic framework that
the city manager and his team apply to day-to-
day operations.
8. The act of collaborating and seeking solutions
that improve and deliver upon the
expectations set by the residents.
3. Governance is providing good leadership.
The role of government is to provide a
pathway to get things done. Governance is to
be a role model and a standard for the
community.
4. Providing service and responding to the
community’s needs through an elected body.
It is staffed by professionals—a city manager
and various department heads, but governance
is broader, it is engaging the residents and the
community to determine what they need,
want, and desire to benefit their quality of life.
5. Historically, the government had this very
known role as the decision-maker, the primary
gatekeeper. I think of a collaborative role,
piecing together the interests of businesses
and private, non-profit, and special interest
groups. It is trying to define rules and
ordinances that everyone can agree with. It is
different now; governance describes a process
with many stakeholders instead of a
hierarchy—it is much bigger now as to who
has input into the rules.
6. Governance is a roadmap for your public
organization. It is the rules the organization is
going to follow to meet its goals and
objectives.
7. Governance is somewhere between leading a
community and running an organization.
Table 7. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

112
Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
1. Governance is being able to make those
policy decisions for the local individuals. It is
making policy decisions like putting up a stop
sign, paving a sidewalk, filling potholes—all
the little items; it is making those decisions on
their behalf.
2. It is the process of the public entity carrying
forth the needs of the community.
3. Governance is when the city and staff work
together on a common goal within a
jurisdiction. It is also when the leaders of the
city work with the people toward a common
goal.
4. Governance is the ability to serve the people.
5. It is leadership, guidance, and fulfilling the
needs of an audience (e.g., a city or county).
6. Governance is being a steward of taxpayer
dollars, a steward of constituent rights and
their collective beliefs, and having a vision for
the city as a whole—it boils down to
stewardship.
1. Governance is the process around which the
government establishes its policies and
practices to preserve the health, welfare, and
safety of its residents.
2. It is the responses of the organization to the
needs and desires of our community.
3. It is the merger of politics and bureaucracy, a
combination of leadership, good decision-
making based upon useful information, and an
understanding of how the people you
represent want to be governed. The needs and
wants of the community combine to define
governance. Good management is part of
governance. Efficiency and effectiveness are
part of good governance.
4. Governance is public policymaking, and good
governance is the ability of a group of elected
or appointed officials who assist in providing
what is best for those whom they govern—a
city or town. It is providing decisions based
upon input from a variety of resources and
experiences.
5. It is the policy formulation and oversight of
the local government. It provides direction to
the administration and the organization. It is
oversight of the overall organization,
representing the voters, and looking out for
their best interests.
Table 8. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 3 Participants
113
Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
1. Governance is the process by which elected
and appointed officials exercise the will of
their constituents.
2. It is the “how” of the policy directions.
Governance is the “how.” Is it elected or
appointed in terms of a mayor? Is it a five-
member city council-city manager model?
Are their boards and commissions? Clear
lines of who is responsible for what and who
pays for it. For a small city, governance
would be how, who, why, and in what manner
do we provide public service.
3. Governance is the act of creating a structure
or a system that can run—the daily act of
helping it run.
4. Representatives of any public agency have a
duty to perform duties that are needed. You
do what you are asked and not more. If a city
government is asked to fix streets or keep
parks open to the people, that is what they
should do. They need to stay in their lane and
opine on issues that are outside of the area of
representation. Governance is being
responsible to the residents.
5. Governance is the management of a city. It
can vary from policy to administration. The
council hires a city manager, and he (or she)
oversees the everyday management of the
entity. The council does the policy and
directives.
6. Governance is working with the people to try
and produce what is best for the community.
1. In public service, we are looked upon to
provide governance and provide policy. We
design roles through individual
communities—we just do the work.
2. Simply put, governance is doing the right
thing for the community as a whole, and that
includes being ethical, honest, fair, non-
capricious, and having well-thought-out
guidance for the community I lead.
3. Governance is a complex layer that guides
policy and strategic thinking for a particular
jurisdiction.
4. In government, we set regulations; we try to
set up an environment that creates a quality of
life. It is governance that helps protect the
quality of life of the community. There is an
expectation that we are fair, good listeners,
and represent all the people of the community
and provide services they rely upon…all this
falls on the government.
5. It is defined as the expectation for the rule of
law to be administered equally across an
entity. The purpose of government as a set of
norms, rules, and guidelines is to create an
equal playing field—the establishment of
norms.
Table 9. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

114
Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
1. Governance is the setting of policy, the
managing of the city’s resources, and the
setting of policy and direction…it is setting
the tone, the direction, and how it is going to
be implemented.
2. Governance is collaboration, which is the key
to implementing policy. You cannot govern
without the collective agreement of your
colleagues. Understanding staff and
policymakers. Some council members think
their IQ went up 30 percent when they got
elected. Some elected officials think being
mayor is some important thing instead of a
resident with some extra responsibility. It is
creating smart policy.
3. Governance is multifaceted. It is establishing
new policy. Ensuring that my staff is putting
into effect any policies we have drafted as a
council. It is also assessing to see if those
policies are working as designed, or are they
flawed. An assessment to determine if they
need to be overturned. It is ensuring that the
policies are fair and not biased. It is ensuring
that we communicate with the public, so they
are aware of what we are doing and how it
benefits them (hopefully); some are self-
service. It is the structure of government, and
we as the policymakers ensure that the system
is functioning, and the cogs are working
ethically and effectively.
4. Governance is leadership and responsibility
for the constituency focused on the quality of
life and infrastructure. It is making tough
decisions. I have two opinions on a
government official—he or she is either a
diplomat or a politician. A diplomat will
make everyone happy. The politician only
cares about “50 percent plus 1” and not about
the constituency.
5. Governance is producing the rules,
regulations, and ordinances for the
community—the standards for everyone.
1. Governance is about a community coming
together to determine what type of service
level they want. It is establishing rules,
norms, policies, etc.
2. Governance is providing the necessities to the
residents in our community—trash pickup,
safe community, paved roads, open parks so
residents can enjoy sports programs or
instructional programs. In its most basic
form, we must take care of the core things;
anything above that is great.
3. Governance is the philosophical approach to
your jurisdiction. It is the scope and
magnitude of your work.
4. Governance is the people deciding how they
live and function. They elect certain leaders
to chart their best course. The city, county,
region, and provide for them.
5. Governance is the formal decision-making
mechanism for municipalities and multi-
stakeholder groups.
115
Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Elected Policymakers (6 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
6. There is much talk between local control and
governance. It is a word we talk about a lot.
It is the way you go about making your policy
decisions. It is how you govern and setting
the pace for it. Being part of groups of similar
cities, having local control, and making sure
the policymakers are at the table to make
decisions for the entire body.
Table 10. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Elected Policymakers (9 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
1. Governance is managing the service to our
constituents. The services that try to enhance
the quality of life for everybody in a
sustainable way.
2. In our case, we are a system of elected human
beings who attempt to collaborate and exist in
certain respects. Under an ever-evolving
charter, the chief executive and the elected
legislators work together for the common
good. We organize and implement the
fundamental things like water, sewer, and
public safety and maintain public realms such
as paving the streets and making sure our
population is well-served in every aspect.
3. Governance is leading a community; you are
placed there, and you are leading.
4. Governance is the responsibility of setting up
structures and systems that allow for city staff
to run a city in alignment with the people’s
needs and goals.
5. Governance is acting for the people, not in the
sense of my own beliefs, but making
decisions and policies that would help and
benefit the greatest number of people.
1. Governance is the structure of the
organization that manages the decision-
making power; it is the leadership at the top, it
is the structure, and it is decision making.
2. Governance is the ability to effectively
conduct the wishes of the population of the
city in an efficient and ethical manner.
3. It is the process of laying out rules,
regulations, and procedures for a population
to succeed.
4. Governance is providing structure and
oversight to a community of people with their
consent and input into that process.
5. It is when you have professionals who are
appointed to lead an organization using the
best practices up and down the organization.
It works best in a city council-city manager
form of government. The staff makes it
happen. Part of governance is the relationship
between the city council and the professional
staff and making sure that it is a positive
relationship. You have a good government
with good governance.
116
Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Elected Policymakers (9 Respondents) City Managers (5 Respondents)
6. Governance is trying to provide a voice to
everyone in the community—in our case, a
truly diverse community.
7. Governance is the process of engaging people,
considering ideas, and making decisions.
8. It is different at the federal, state, county, and
city levels. However, at the city level, the
principle of governance is the best way to
represent your constituency and work toward
your policies.
9. Governance is the ability to make informed
decisions on behalf of the constituents who
elected us to authority.
Table 11. Question 1 Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Governance is a collaborative use of resources in the public service sector. It could be shared
resources in policymaking or shared resources in policing. It provides more efficient delivery of
services, and it is better when multiple groups such as other cities, the county, the state, etc. are
involved. It is the governing of shared resources.
2. Government and governance have two definitions. The standard “textbook” for how you follow all
policies, statutes, and governance, which is how you implement the laws, ordinances, statutes, and
how you govern your community or your constituents to make it better for them. Government is
just a noun—it is what we do. Governance is how you do it successfully or unsuccessfully—it is
how you implement and conduct government.
Table 12. Question 1 Responses from Out-of-State Participants
As mentioned previously, the remaining questions of the interview include a general
synopsis garnered from the responses of the 73 California-based participants grouped by quantile
together with support from one to four respondents in each quantile to demonstrate the richness
and efficacy of the data collected. Both responses from the two out-of-state jurisdictions appear
after the six quantile-based responses, as a synopsis would be redundant.
117
Question 2
Table 13, Table 14, Table 15, Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions for question 2,
which asked, “What does it mean to you for a local jurisdiction to have good governance?”
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: Good governance is about serving the needs of the entire community and being
responsible to the people—personal beliefs are secondary. It involves integrity,
transparency, ethics, morals, legal compliance, open and consistent
communication, establishing community trust and maintaining that trust, and a
focus on policies that provide benefit in the future and not just today.
Support: 1) It is a combination of transparency and open communication. There needs to be
a level of security and professionalism in our community operations. Good
governance means establishing community trust and maintaining that trust.
2) For good governance, it is important to have integrity, ethics, transparency, and
legal compliance. These are the cornerstones—without morality and ethics, or if
you have a violation of laws, it does not matter what you end up with.
Table 13. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: Good governance is rules tied back to a charter, government code section, city
ordinance, or municipal code that provides the legal authority; it is a roadmap.
Built on a steady foundation, good governance has a framework that is thoughtful
and an implementation that is practical. It is transparency and includes input and
feedback from the residents.
Support: Good governance must be built on a steady foundation. If not, cracks will show. It
includes elected and the administrators and the roles of each. When enacting
policy, there must be an understanding of how it works from a day-to-day
perspective. It has a framework that is thoughtful, and the implementation is
practical and pragmatic. It is not legislating for sound bites.
Table 14. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants
118
Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: Good governance is a thoughtful and organized process that allows for a wide
divergence of positions in the decision-making process. There must be balance,
communication, transparency, ethical behavior, and the ability to serve the people
as a functioning government using best practices. There must be collaboration with
local leaders. It means being responsive and listening to the residents and
constituents of the community.
Support: 1) Good governance is having a governing board (a city council) who is thoughtful,
balanced, and represents the community. They must look out for the good of the
community. It is transparency, openness, and best-management practices. It
considers all the views, not just the majority.
2) Good governance means there needs to be transparency, ethical behavior, and the
ability to serve the people as a functioning government.
Table 15. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants

Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: Good governance is being responsive to the needs of the community. It is being
empathetic, careful, and understanding. It is problem-solving and maintaining the
open participation of stakeholders, which leads to better oversight of the governing
body. It is having high ethical standards and being transparent.
Support: 1) Good governance is high ethical standards, transparency, and listening to your
residents—their needs are at the top above your own.
2) Good governance is a symbiotic relationship between the policymakers and the
administration.
Table 16. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

119
Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: Good governance is reflective of the community. It is the ability to bring all
stakeholders into the process and not be one-sided. It starts at the top with the
elected policymakers who must act morally, ethically, and with sound mind and
heart. Founded on bidirectional trust with the constituency and its government,
good governance is responsiveness and transparency with the residents you serve—
you must show them the process.
Support: 1) Good governance is ensuring that policymakers are acting morally, ethically, of
sound mind, and sound heart. Ensuring they implement those principles in their
role as elected officials and policymakers. They ensure that their staff is in line with
their ideals and ethics. Their policies and the day-to-day functions of the
governmental structure are operating under those same ideals as well, with the
guiding principle being the greater good of the constituency.
2) Good governance needs to include the citizens and the leadership to ensure you
have a community that is involved. Then you need to ensure transparency, ethical
leadership, and aspire to deliver what the community wants—no ‘back pocket’
deals.
Table 17. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: Good governance means being responsive to the constituency and providing the
leadership and the bravery to adhere, maintain, and pursue worthwhile goals and
objectives fairly, equitably, and in a balanced fashion. It means getting input from
the governed to create a wonderful place to live and raise a family.
Support: 1) Good governance is getting input from the governed. With the feedback loop,
you are providing access to the process and engaging in whatever form to get input
from the governed. Getting feedback on the results gives the governed a full
appreciation of the direction taken and resources used. Collaboration and
networking, lessons learned, and benchmarking against the mistakes of others
create best practices. It is not siloed city-by-city. You must have a best-practices
mentality. Ethical organizations are a baseline.
120
Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
2) Everything in a person’s life, especially in urban life, starts with good
governance. That leads to areas of public safety, poverty, education, etc. Without
good governance, there can be chaos and dying cities: “Hell is a dying city.” Bad
governance can create a dying city. Good governance can create a wonderful place
to live and raise a family.
Table 18. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Good governance is effectively dealing with local government funding that is being
reduced while service demands are increased. How will we provide the level of service
our constituents demand of us without a good collaborative governing system? We cannot
survive without good governance.
2. If you do not have good governance, you cannot have a successful, vibrant, and growing
community. There are laws, ordinances, and policies that you must follow. If you do not
implement them in a successful way and keep your community moving forward, you
cannot have success. You have to good governance; it is the only way to make your
community successful. You have to keep your community growing, especially when
everyone’s budget and finances are in need; you have to create good governance to carry
out the work needed, such as infrastructure, homelessness, all the different issues that face
all levels of government. Without good governance, you cannot conduct and be successful
in those areas.
Table 19. Question 2 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Question 3
As mentioned previously during the discussion of the interview tool, question 3 is a
multipart question where respondents observed (one-at-a-time) each building block and its four
subcomponents (see slides 11 through 14 in Appendix B: Interview PowerPoint Shown to
Participants via Zoom). Respondents were given instructions to use a “1” to “4” forced ranking
system (e.g., no ties allowed) where a “1” represented the greatest degree of importance and a
“4” represented the lowest degree of importance from the participant’s unique point of view
121
within his or her jurisdiction, recognizing that all four subcomponents may be very close
together. Furthermore, the instructions included a request for comments, feedback, or to
elaborate as to why the respondent chose a given ranked order.
After a participant viewed, ranked, and commented on the four building blocks, their
respective subcomponents, and why he or she chose the ranked order they did, the tallied values
appeared seamlessly to the participant for cross-verification and validation on slide 15, which
was used as a feedback loop to ensure accurate data capture and provide an opportunity for the
participant to self-reflect and possibly change his or her rankings. After this cross-verification
and validation step, the participant’s highest priority subcomponents from each building block
(e.g., the four number “1” rankings) were displayed on the framework graphic (see Figure 11.
Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance). The respondent then had
to rank order these four subcomponents using the same “1” to “4” scale. As the participants
disclosed their rankings, the researcher updated the numbers on the slide accordingly, which
created another cross-verification and validation feedback loop.
As intended, the data captured during this multipart question provides considerable
opportunity for quantitative evaluation. There is a multitude of ways to examine and study this
impressive dataset. To attempt a complete multidimensional analysis is far too great a task for
this research endeavor. Consequently, future projects can take full advantage of the dataset. For
this research study, however, the following analyses are provided to demonstrate the quantitative
value of the captured data: 1) a high-level analysis of rankings across all 73 California
participants, 2) a high-level analysis of rankings across the 41 California policymakers, 3) a
high-level analysis of rankings across the 32 California city managers, and 4) an analysis of
rankings by quantile. Given the imbalance between the number of elected policymakers and city
122
managers within each quantile, only the “complete” cities (e.g., 32 of the 38 total California
jurisdictions) within each quantile can statistically demonstrate a valuable comparison.
Furthermore, when more than one elected policymaker participated from a “complete”
jurisdiction, the rankings utilized come from the first elected policymaker interviewed. Finally,
the raw data collected appears in Appendix J—Ranking Data Collected grouped by quantile for
the reader who may wish to perform his or her data analyses. None of the data contains any
personally identifying characteristics.
It is important to note that the capture of the comments, feedback, and thought processes
expressed during the ranking exercise is of substantial benefit. The magnitude and value of this
knowledgebase are immense, as it ranges from a dozen or so sentences to a dozen or more very
lengthy paragraphs from each participant. Future projects will leverage this treasure-trove of
highly reflective insight and expert opinion.
High-level Analysis of Rankings Across all 73 California Participants
Figure 24 below depicts the frequency distribution of the rankings of the 16
subcomponents of the framework by the 73 California-based participants.
123

Figure 24. Frequency Distribution of #1 Rankings
Examining the data at the building block level is more valuable. As such, the following
graphs depict the frequency distribution of the #1 rankings for the Values and Ethics building
block, Transformational Leadership building block, Innovation and Co-creation building block,
and Strategic Planning building block for the 73 California participates grouped as a whole.
58
2
10
3
21
6
29
17
11
28
13
21
34
1
6
32
Frequency Distribution of #1 Rankings
124
Figure 25 below depicts the results of the #1 rankings for the Values and Ethics building block.

Figure 25. Values and Ethics Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings
125
Figure 26 below depicts the results of the #1 rankings for the Transformational Leadership
building block.

Figure 26. Transformational Leadership Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings

126
Figure 27 below depicts the results of the #1 rankings for the Innovation and Co-creation
building block.

Figure 27. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings
127
Figure 28 below depicts the results of the #1 rankings for the Strategic Planning building block.

Figure 28. Strategic Planning Building Block Distribution of #1 Rankings
Figure 29 below depicts the tally of #1 rankings from all 73 California-based participants
on the Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance with the highest values for each
building block highlighted.
128

Figure 29. Tally of #1 Rankings from all 73 California-based Participants
For ease of reference, Appendix I: Additional Graphical Analyses of Frequency
Distributions provides a grouping of all four frequency distributions for each of the four building
blocks based upon the rankings provided by the 73 California participants. This depiction
presents additional insight into how the participants grappled with assessing the importance of
the subcomponents after choosing a clear #1. Figure 30 below provides a complete “birds-eye
view” of the frequency distribution of all rankings across all 73 California participants.

129

Figure 30. Complete Distribution of all Rankings (73 California Participants)
Ranking of #1 Subcomponents in a “1” to “4”
Table 20 below lists the results of the “1” to “4” rankings of the #1-ranked
subcomponents across all 73 California participants with the highest values shown in red
typeface in a white box.

130
Building Block Subcomponents #1 Ranking #2 Ranking #3 Ranking #4 Ranking
Public Trust
39
15 3 2
Civic Oversight 0 1 0 1
Transparency 7 2 0 0
Accountability 1 1 1 0
Collaboration and Consensus Building 6 14 1 0
Internal Administration 2 2 0 2
Public Safety 12
16
1 0
Local Cultural Intelligence 3 7 2 5
Youth Development 0 1 3 7
Sustainability 0 4 11 13
Technology and e‐Gov 0 1 5 7
City‐Business Relations 0 0 5
16
Economic Development 1 5
21
7
Community Services and the Arts 0 0 1 0
Housing Programs 1 0 3 2
Infrastructure & Transportation 1 4 16 11
Table 20. Ranking of #1 Subcomponents in a "1" to "4"
Ranking Analysis of 41 California Elected Policymakers
Concentrating on the California elected policymakers, Figure 31, Figure 32, Figure 33,
and Figure 34 below depict the frequency distributions for these 41 participants for each of the
four building blocks.

131

Figure 31. Values and Ethics Building Block for California Policymakers

Figure 32. Transformational Leadership Building Block for California Policymakers

132

Figure 33. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for California Policymakers

Figure 34. Strategic Planning Building Block for California Policymakers
Ranking Analysis of 32 California City Managers
Following the same process as the prior subsection that looked only at the 41 California
policymakers, Figure 35, Figure 36, Figure 37, and Figure 38 below depict the frequency
distributions for the 32 city managers for each of the four building blocks.

133

Figure 35. Values and Ethics Building Block for California City Managers

Figure 36. Transformational Leadership Building Block for California City Managers

134

Figure 37. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for California City Managers

Figure 38. Strategic Planning Building Block for California Managers
For comparison purposes and to illustrate the quantitative value of the data collected,
Figure 111, Figure 112, Figure 113, and Figure 114 in the section Comparisons Between
California Policymakers and City Managers of Appendix I: Additional Graphical Analyses of
Frequency Distributions show a “side-by-side” comparison (e.g., one stacked on top of the other)
135
between the 41 California Policymakers and the 32 California City Managers. While naturally
lopsided by the number of respective participants (e.g., 41 versus 32), the illustrated frequency
magnitudes of each component provide a valuable comparison in terms of the similar and
dissimilar thought processes between elected policymakers and their city managers.
Ranking Analysis by Quantile of the 32 “Complete” Jurisdictions
This section provides a ranking analysis of the 32 “complete” jurisdictions, which depicts
each set of cities grouped by the six population quantiles (e.g., five small cities, seven small-to-
medium cities, five medium cities, five medium-to-large cities, five large cities, and five very
large cities). As noted, when more than one elected policymaker from a “complete” jurisdiction
participated, as was the case in three of these cities, the rankings utilized take into account only
the first elected policymaker interviewed to maintain symmetry (e.g., 32 policymakers and their
32 city managers) and provide some semblance of randomness.
Figure 39, Figure 40, Figure 41, and Figure 42 below depict the frequency distributions
of each building block for the five “complete” quantile 1 cities:

Figure 39. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities
136

Figure 40. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities

Figure 41. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities

137

Figure 42. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 1 Cities

Figure 43, Figure 44, Figure 45, and Figure 46 below depict the frequency distributions
of each building block for the seven “complete” quantile 2 cities:

Figure 43. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities

138

Figure 44. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities

Figure 45. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities

139

Figure 46. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 2 Cities

Figure 47, Figure 48, Figure 49, and Figure 50 below depict the frequency distributions
of each building block for the five “complete” quantile 3 cities:

Figure 47. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities

140

Figure 48. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities

Figure 49. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities

141

Figure 50. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 3 Cities

Figure 51, Figure 52, Figure 53, and Figure 54 below depict the frequency distributions
of each building block for the five “complete” quantile 4 cities:

Figure 51. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities
142

Figure 52. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities

Figure 53. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities
As mentioned earlier, the rankings in this frequency distribution for Youth Development,
Sustainability, and Technology and e-Gov have nine rankings instead of ten because one
participant chose not to rank these three subcomponents.
143

Figure 54. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 4 Cities

Figure 55, Figure 56, Figure 57, and Figure 58 below depict the frequency distributions
of each building block for the five “complete” quantile 5 cities:

Figure 55. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities

144

Figure 56. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities

Figure 57. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities

145

Figure 58. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 5 Cities

Figure 59, Figure 60, Figure 61, and Figure 62 depict the frequency distributions of each
building block for the five “complete” quantile 6 cities:

Figure 59. Values and Ethics Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities

146

Figure 60. Transformational Leadership Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities

Figure 61. Innovation and Co-creation Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities

147

Figure 62. Strategic Planning Building Block for Quantile 6 Cities
Female and Male Elected Policymaker Comparison
Figure 63 below depicts the combined frequency distributions broken down by female
and male elected policymakers. Normalized percentages account for the difference between the
number of female and male participants (e.g., 18 versus 23). Differences in the #1 rankings for
Public Trust, Transparency, Internal Administration, and Local Cultural Intelligence appear
highlighted below.
148

Figure 63. Comparison of Female and Male Frequency Distribution of Rankings
149
Question 4
Table 21, Table 22, Table 23, Table 24, Table 25, Table 26, and Table 27 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions for question 4,
which asked, “Is there anything you would like to add to the notion of good governance and
how you see its importance to running a successful local jurisdiction?”
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: Communication at all levels and in all directions; it is most critical Even as an
elected official, I strongly support term limits—controlled turnover. Leadership
starts at the top; understand your shortcomings and hire the right people—
surround yourself with smart and capable people. It is all about the community—no
personal gain and no egotistical perspectives. Politics gets in the way sometimes;
you must understand the political dynamics of the community. Public trust is so
important. Flexibility and common sense.
Support: Leadership starts at the top. You set the example by being someone open and
accessible, being professional. Also, you must understand your shortcomings as a
manager. You hire the right people, including a strong assistant city manager, and
then you put smart people around them. There can be no compromise there. It is
important to have the public involved in the process.
Table 21. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: There seems to be a widespread lack of understanding of city government structure
on the part of the constituency; social media makes it worse. There needs to be a
way to get a broader and deeper level of understanding of how the city government
operates. It is basic, but you must do the right thing, listen to everyone, and make
good choices. Good governance is helping the residents succeed; it is too easy to
say no instead of trying to fix their problem. Create more open cooperation and
dialog with the community. Ethics and accountability are paramount.
150
Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Support: 1) I would like to add that often people get elected to office, and they think they are
supposed to bring expertise. Be a lifelong learner, and do not stay focused on what
you think you know. You must be open to the latest information and data. You
might find there are better ways to govern; be unafraid to grow and learn. Those
who govern well do so because they grow and mature. We are only as good as the
data we have today. We must be open to the fact that data changes.
2) Residents must understand the vast difference between politics and governance.
Table 22. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: Good governance means the policy decisions are fair and equitable. Listen to the
concerns of the citizens and create the transparency and accountability that having
trust with them demands. Quality governance is essential for a city to be
successful. Good governance requires effective communication. Be collaborative
and do not “reinvent the wheel”; best practices are necessary. Be part of the
community and be inclusive of all segments and stakeholders; that leads to
collaboration. The governing board must work in tandem with administration and
staff.
Support: 1) Be engaged with the residents; be open and available.
2) Communication is key. Transparency, integrity, honesty, and good ethics are
important for people to trust their local jurisdiction.
Table 23. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants

151
Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: Good governance requires good people. You must be openminded, collaborative,
and have good people skills; it requires the willingness to see things from someone
else’s point of view. Good governance is attainable regardless of the elected body.
Policies change because communities change—there is an evolution; having a core
foundation in good governance helps ease the change. The council and staff must
work as a team and put the resident’s priorities first.
Support: 1) Good governance relies on good systems and good people. The better the
people, the greater the integrity, honesty, morals, values, and self-discipline. You
need a good system with checks and balances to safeguard against bad people doing
terrible things.
2) The guiding factor is being open and transparent to your stakeholders.
Table 24. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: Good governance is understanding you are a public servant. Good governance is
having the personal fiduciary responsibility to expose the truth. Must have term
limits. Ethics and sustainability are the benchmarks of good governance. Good
governance is having the pulse of the community. Marry that with good moral
values, and it is possible.
Support: 1) It is not personal; it is organizational. If we are making promises, we darn well
better keep them.
2) You must teach elected officials how government works; just because you are in
the minority on a vote does not mean you cannot change things. Term limits are
necessary; corruption happens when people get too comfortable.
Table 25. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

152
Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: Ethics is fundamental. Institutional knowledge must travel to subsequent
generations of public leaders. Public trust is the most valuable tool. You cannot
have success without accountability. Good governance is a balancing act with
constituent relations. Public trust, communication, and proper relationships with
staff and residents as well as staff and the city council. Listening is especially
important. You must have a diversity of thought. Community engagement is
important; hearing the people’s voice is vital.
Support: 1) The public trust piece is my most useful tool; it is my greatest asset. Without it, I
do not know how I could function.
2) At the local level within a city, residents only care about the 75 feet in front of
their house—potholes, streetlights, and being responsive to that 75 feet. They often
overlook the big picture things like being a good fiscal steward and dealing with
economic development.
3) There must be comparative analysis—compare the city to itself and other cities.
Table 26. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Without governance, a community cannot work; you must work with everyone together as
a team. We all have the same issues. We all have different ideas and different solutions
that work in different areas. One part of good governance is great collaboration. You can
learn important types of solutions that may or may not work in your jurisdiction.
2. All jurisdictions will have funding reduced in the future. Good governance is our pathway
to success.
Table 27. Question 4 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Question 5
Table 28, Table 29, Table 30, Table 31, Table 32, Table 33, and Table 34 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions for question 5,
153
which asked, “If I were to develop a checklist, primer, or practical guide for effective local
governance, would it be of interest to you as a local government leader?”
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: It needs to be implementable—a higher level than the theory in an MPA class. It
would be interesting to read. It would be great for new elected officials; a checklist
showing you what to look for would be great! It must be practical, then it would be
invaluable.
Support: 1) Great way to learn from people’s mistakes—nothing is better than to plagiarize
what other people do.
2) The newbies could use it better than anyone—do not start on the wrong foot.
3) Some sort of sanity check or guidance would be interesting.
Table 28. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: Very open to learning; a lifelong learner. There needs to be a roadmap; very few
elected people know what to do once they take office; they have a myopic view of
the community. A rule book would be extremely helpful. It needs to be written in a
simple language and be easily digestible. It would be good for the community also.
Support: 1) Two thumbs up! Print a stack and leave them next to the agenda at every
meeting.
2) You can never have too much education on how to do your job better.
Table 29. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

154
Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: It would be good for newly elected officials.
Support: 1) A checklist or guide will allow you to compare what you have and what you
might have forgotten.
2) Any cheat sheet or opportunity to make a local government official better is a
good thing.
3) Yes, you do not get enough training (as an elected official).
4) Absolutely! Want to be on the mailing list—I will take it!
Table 30. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants

Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: Checklists improve outcomes. It must be general enough to consider the fact that
each jurisdiction is different. I am always looking for something to make my job
better. It is always important to stay up to date; it helps strengthen and enhance
the skills of a local leader. There is always room for improvement. It should also
go to community members.
Support: 1) With a checklist or primer, it is garbage in-garbage out. Each jurisdiction is
different; it must be non-partisan.
2) Being a city manager was not my career goal; I am always looking for something
to make my job better.
3) Going through a checklist forces you to think about things without just voting
down the tribal way. Eliminate partisanship.
4) No idea what I was walking into when I entered office. Saw something broken
and wanted to fix it. Six months into my first term, I would not have been able to
answer these questions.
Table 31. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

155
Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: A checklist or primer is much needed. We fall into this role. There needs to be a
way to demystify it. It would be a resource—would have appreciated it when first
elected.
Support: 1) Being an elected official, you go into this job with no guide on how to be an
effective member of governance. We have rules as to what you can and cannot do
like FPPC and how to conduct effective public meetings, but there is no book on
how to run government given the immense influence in our day-to-day lives.
2) It is always good to have a litmus test and to assess all the angles. It would be
good for assistant city managers or directors—for people that do not yet have the
experience.
Table 32. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: Anything that would help me perform in my role in a better way. It would have
been great for my first year as a city manager. This is exactly what we need (as an
elected official). It would help keep you honest and on your path—it needs to
incorporate ethics.
Support: 1) It would be of interest particularly if it has perspectives from a lot of other
leaders on both sides (elected and city management).
2) I would love to hear what we do not do well; city managers do not tell their
stories and anecdotes well—storytelling would be a good thing to include.
3) We come into office with diverse backgrounds, different degrees, a myriad of
experiences; this is a job where it is all on-the-job training. Having a checklist or a
guide that provides how to be a more effective leader would be of great benefit.
Table 33. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

156
Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Absolutely! This framework you are creating…I would love to get this and use it with my
staff.
2. 110% yes! It should be of interest to every local leader.
Table 34. Question 5 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Question 6
Table 35, Table 36, Table 37, Table 38, Table 39, Table 40, and Table 41 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions for question 6,
which asked, “Do you think expanding this research to all 482 incorporated jurisdictions in
California would be valuable?”
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: The more you have, the less valuable it will be to smaller jurisdictions. We have
nothing in common with large jurisdictions. A good cross-section based on size
with a blend of localities should be good enough.
Support: 1) Once you have a good cross-section (e.g., rural versus coastal, northern versus
southern, etc.). If it is too broad and expansive, it will feel like a theoretical MPA
document. It loses its luster when you go big.
2) Keeping it (the study) small helps keep it effective.
3) Statistically, you reach a point where you will not get any more insight.
Increasing your sample size will not get you any more insight into the principles of
governance.
Table 35. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

157
Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: California is such a diverse state. You do not need all of them. Not an effective use
of time—a low percentage in terms of payoff; all you need is a diverse mix of cities.
You will get too much redundancy after 30 or 40 cities.
Support: 1) This has made me think about many of the things you presented. I imagine and
hope that other elected officials would want to stop and make themselves think of
these things.
2) Watching the COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of how diverse a state we
are.
3) One-size fits all would not be good; it is valuable for everyone to see different
perspectives.
Table 36. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: More sampling will get you better results. You might want to include
unincorporated areas as well. A cross-section of cities is more useful. It will be
hard to quantify the data with 482 jurisdictions—there is much uniqueness. Your
sample size is good; with 482 cities, you will see a lot of redundancy. Governance
is fundamentally relevant everywhere.
Support: 1) It would not hurt to go to all of them, though it might be tough.
2) You will have to conduct it with the League (of California Cities)—it would be a
good session to have at our conference.
Table 37. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants

158
Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: The more specific it gets the less applicable it will be. It must be organic. A wider
audience will help shape how others in this profession see government.
Support: 1) What is important to one city may not be important to another. California has
many permutations. Every jurisdiction is like a unique family. The framers of the
county left things intentionally vague.
2) Too much redundancy if you do all of them.
Table 38. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: Too much work—good representative sample covering regional differences
between Northern California, Central California, and Southern California should
be sufficient.
Support: 1) These principles of good governance are universal elements in our democracy,
and they are ideals in society that we expect of our elected officials.
2) The bigger your sample size, the more robust inferences and conclusions you can
draw. If you have a good representative sample, that is fine. We are all unique, and
we look at California being unique. There is a great deal of commonality. It would
be more useful to have a sufficient sample size in California then go outside the
state to get a better perspective.
Table 39. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

159
Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: Governing at the local level is different from state and county. You need to validate
your findings.
Support: 1) Something like this would provide a mentoring document that is not from a
political environment.
2) Research within the state is valuable; it is a microcosm, poor, rich, urban, rural;
you need to validate your findings.
Table 40. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Yes, from my limited knowledge of California, it is a remarkably diverse state.
2. California has its own unique character; why would you not want to expand it?
Table 41. Question 6 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Question 7
Table 42, Table 43, Table 44, Table 45, Table 46, Table 47, and Table 48 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions for question 7,
which asked, “What about expanding it outside the state of California?”
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: It would be valuable to correlate the data; look at differences outside California.
Support: 1) Good governance should be universal among cities outside the state.
2) Going outside the state is of less value; they are not under the same rules as we
are in California. The state mandates so much of what we do.
160
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
3) California operates in its own special bubble; I would be more interested in
reading about outside the state.
Table 42. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: Local government should be the same in different states as far as governance; the
rules and structure may differ. It would be valuable to get different perspectives. It
should mix in some out-of-state cities. Values may shift (e.g., sustainability might
be different). If the cities were high-functioning cities, then it would be valuable.
Support: 1) I would like to see what conversations are going on in the country.
2) It is more important to know what is going on here in California; we are diverse
enough.
3) What we do is fascinating work; it is not easy, and we are still perfecting it.
Having this type of research, guidelines, tips, and tricks will make us more
effective. Going beyond California would be good.
4) If you are looking at your framework, it should work nationally.
Table 43. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: Outside the state would be useful, but it will be harder to quantify because of the
different laws.
Support: 1) You will see interesting things during that exploration—is it better or worse?
2) Local government exists in other states and even outside the country. It would
certainly provide you with a different level of perspective.
Table 44. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants
161

Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: California is unique, but there is much to learn outside the state.
Support: 1) California is unique. I would be most interested in California research.
2) It is important for professional managers to get resources from everywhere.
Water recycling in Arizona—they have been doing it for 100 years.
Table 45. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: What works here may not work in other states. Useful to get other perspectives.
Support: 1) It would be interesting to see how regionally someone in Florida or Georgia
reacts to these questions.
2) We think we are the best in California; others govern differently. It would be
valuable to go outside the state; we are in a bubble here in California.
3) Other parts of the world even would be good to understand. Water is a good
example; could we do things the way they do in the desert regions of the world.
Table 46. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: It would be useful to compare different jurisdictions from outside the state. Going
outside the state might be too broad.
Support: 1) There is diversity outside the state, and it would be valuable to study it.
2) It might be interesting; most professionals want to see stuff from right next door.
3) Do the same things matter to me if I am in Chicago or a small town in Indiana?
Table 47. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants
162
Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. It would be interesting to see how other jurisdictions across the U.S. think.
2. The whole nation is remarkably diverse. There are different ideas and different solutions to
problems we all share.
Table 48. Question 7 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Question 8
The interpretation of this final question, which asked, “Is there anything else you would
like to share on the topics we have discussed today?” varied considerably. Responses ranged
from “no, I have nothing further to add” to “this interview was fantastic, and I cannot wait to see
the results.” Other responses to the “catch-all” nature of the question included critiques and
assessments of the state of affairs in government and general attitudes and feelings toward the
plusses and minuses of working either as an elected policymaker or a city manager. As such,
Table 49, Table 50, Table 51, Table 52, Table 53, Table 54, and Table 55 below provide
synopses and support responses for each quantile and the out-of-state jurisdictions, which are
naturally and understandably more in-depth, again illustrating the richness and value of the
captured lived experiences.
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
Synopsis: You need a framework and rules to follow (elected). You need to function as a
team. Communication is important. Your ideals of good governance must match
the constituents you serve. Local cultural intelligence and collaboration and
consensus building are essential. It is important to have a sense of responsibility.
Support: 1) It is critical to have a framework and rules to follow (elected). You must
function as a team; communication is so important. You need a mentor and a
minimum of one year in office to be effective.
163
Quantile 1 (Small Cities)
(Bradbury, Hidden Hills, Indian Wells, Avalon, Villa Park, and Rolling Hills)
2) City managers find themselves having to do something controversial; city
council gets heat; you lose your job. It is important to ensure that your ideals of
good governance match with the constituents you serve. You cannot impose them
on the city council and constituents. If you are too far off the edge, it will cause
problems.
3) I am disappointed with the state government, especially on the topic of housing.
4) I really like “local cultural intelligence” and “collaboration and consensus
building”—as a city manager, I use those to my advantage all the time. Good
governance applies anywhere you implement.
Table 49. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 1 Participants

Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
Synopsis: Thought-provoking interview. Write the guide/primer in layperson’s terms.
Interesting questions. The citizenry must be engaged. Communication is essential.
Passive transparency is not enough. Financial accounting processes and CAFRs
49

are too complex. California has no issue overrunning local control; it is not the
same in other states. The public sector could learn a great deal from the private
sector. Running a city is complex.
Support: 1) This got me thinking…it is a worthy goal—to help educate the constituency;
homelessness is an issue. I would love to see it written in laymen’s language; that
would help people. It would promote them to want to run for office and even lessen
the gadflies—make them more productive.
2) You must keep the citizenry engaged—it is critical. Cities with problems could
be due to the citizens not being engaged. All the information on the city’s website
(and saying you are transparent) is not enough anymore (too passive). You must
use social media channels, newspapers, word-of-mouth, etc., to reach out to the
community in a way that is digestible. Not all residents get what they want; at the
end of the day, the need to feel heard. They may not like the decision, but they
cannot say they were not listened to. It may take longer to get to a decision, but
that is ok. Deliver the process more than the product.

49
A CAFR is a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report produced by governments in compliance with principles
and standards put forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-are-annual-financial-reports-useless.html
164
Quantile 2 (Small-to-Medium Cities)
(Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Sierra Madre,
San Marino, Westlake Village, and Pismo Beach)
3) I wish there were a way to make the financial accounting processes more
understandable to the common layperson. The CAFRs are so convoluted and
complex with hybrid accounting methods. Even people with experience have
issues understanding them. Government and the citizens need to understand the
true financial dilemmas facing local government (e.g., pension obligations,
healthcare costs, etc.)
4) Excited to see what you produce and what you discover.
5) Interested in seeing how other people see the changing role of government with
concerning the state; California has no issue overrunning local control.
6) The public sector could learn from the private sector. Unions make it difficult.
7) Most people do not understand how complex it is to run a city. Residents do not
understand how complex it is—all the balls are in the air at a given time. While
cities get a bad reputation because of a few bad apples, there are many smart and
highly capable people. Their contributions should be respected and noticed.
8) A prior city manager told me that ‘if you can get two of your colleagues to agree,
then we can talk.’ That is not the way it should be. It is about collaborating and
getting solutions everyone can live with.
9) Very interesting questions.
10) I really appreciate this—thank you!
Table 50. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 2 Participants

Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Synopsis: It would be good to include unincorporated areas in the county. Public safety is
especially important. Deep concern over where local governance is heading.
“Budgeting by ballot box” is not good. L.A. Charter Amendment
50
(“Reimagine
L.A.) is a step toward “misgovernance.” The pandemic (COVID-19) has played a
significant role in how we govern. It would be interesting to get gender-related
perspectives (e.g., the differences in thoughts among male and female local
policymakers).

50
http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/147584.pdf
165
Quantile 3 (Medium Cities)
(Artesia, Calabasas, La Cañada Flintridge, Lomita, Agoura Hills, and El Segundo)
Support: 1) It would be interesting to get gender-related perspectives.
2) Perhaps reaching out to unincorporated areas that fall under the county.
3) I would like to add how important public safety is.
4) I would share my great concerns over where we are heading in local governance
these days—within the last year or so. Deeply concerned over the movement to re-
imagine law enforcement. Budgeting by the ballot box is not good at all. The L.A.
Charter Amendment (“Reimagine L.A.”) that would tie up 10% of their
uncommitted revenues is a step toward “mis-governance.” You need the courage to
make decisions.
5) What you are doing is vital—expanding local governance and understanding and
studying it more as a science. It will be a tremendous help in trying to solve
problems.
6) The pandemic (COVID-19) has played a significant role in how we manage and
govern. The politics that enter the situation because of the pandemic have been
challenging; it has become a political football—how much are you willing to accept
in terms of changed behavior.
7) What you are doing is a good thing; anything you can do to make our (elected)
job better.
8) Honored to be part of this (research).
Table 51. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 3 Participants

Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Synopsis: “What-not-to-do’s” are important. This exercise (the research interview) was good
considering newly seated status. Doing the right thing is more important than ever
(considering the pandemic). May want to consider outreach to other countries to
find new tools. The true assessment of good governance is whether it makes their
lives better (the constituency). Comprehensive list (the framework subcomponents).
166
Quantile 4 (Medium-to-Large Cities)
(Manhattan Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, West Hollywood, Bell, and Walnut)
Support: 1) The “what not-to-do’s” are important. We all share the same systems. Identify
the key things that are common to the species and help us rule out the bad processes
we are not aware of. There is broad agreement that drinking (alcohol) in excess is
bad. Even most doctors would say it is not good. Some people do it more than
others. A framework should not dictate how much to drink; rather, it should not
drink too much.
2) I found this (exercise) to be good being new (somewhat) in this seat; it makes
you stop and think about what you really do. The ranking was good; it made me
think about things as a priority (the rankings). The first question…I did not know
what was coming. I never had to define it (governance). We often know what is
not good, but what about what is good (in terms of governance)?
3) Doing the right thing is more important than ever (because of the pandemic).
4) I found this (exercise) especially useful; it opens doors for me. Maybe consider
outreach to other countries to find other tools.
5) There is a contrast between what you need to do the job and what you need to get
the job (elected office). The process of getting the job is distasteful; it requires
personality traits that, if you get the job, they (the personality traits) get in the way
of playing well with others. In that sense, we have a broken system. “The job is
great, but the interview is like someone peeling your skin off.” It is like a blood
sport.
6) The true assessment of good governance—does it make their lives (the
constituency) better.
7) Very comprehensive list (the framework subcomponents)—it gets you thinking.
Table 52. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 4 Participants

Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
Synopsis: The key is transparency and education. It is also important to provide vital city
services.
Support: 1) I am interested in the results of your study (as an elected policymaker). It
grounds me to have a pulse on contemporary issues.
167
Quantile 5 (Large Cities)
(Bellflower, Lakewood, Lynwood, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, and Arcadia)
2) Good governance is important; we must always do what is right and remember
why we do what we do (as elected policymakers).
3) It is also important that the city provides services; it is a vital function. So, you
need good administrative leadership, and you need their backing. The
administration does not get to pick you (as an elected official), the citizens do.
4) The key is transparency and education. Government 101 to get more community
engagement and a better quality of life.
5) We do not plan to manage during chaos (considering the pandemic); you quickly
see who can and who cannot (take care of business) when things get bad. You
cannot be afraid to make decisions. You cannot overthink things (as a
policymaker). You can always over-plan things, but by the time you figure it out,
you may not need it—it is a big waste of time for you (elected policymaker) and for
staff. You need to plan accordingly but execute.
6) Eager to see your results.
Table 53. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 5 Participants

Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Synopsis: Important to maintain local control. Good governance is becoming increasingly
challenging. As an elected (policymaker), you need to ensure equity, fairness, and
opportunity.
Support: 1) It is important to maintain local control. Legislation out of Sacramento does not
always help us (e.g., Regional Housing Needs Assessment [RHNA]).
51

2) A good set of values and vision—I want to see the results.
3) Look at practice versus theory.

51
http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/pages/housing.aspx
168
Quantile 6 (Very Large Cities)
(Burbank, Long Beach, Anaheim, South Gate, Downey, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
4) Appreciate the effort you are making—extremely valuable. Would encourage
anyone to participate. One question changed my perspective—“Would this work
throughout CA and other jurisdictions?” (referencing interview questions 6 & 7).
There is definite value going through it. We must explain how government works
to the public.
5) I would add that good governance is becoming increasingly challenging than
when I first got involved (as a city manager). Social media, blogs, information
sharing, and communication have changed the face of governance in both good and
bad ways. The angst against the government makes it hard for professionals to do
their job and feel good about it. This (negativity) impacts the perception of good
governance, and it is important for people to understand that it (a city) can be the
most well-run and most transparent, but with “investigative reporting,” blogging,
and the like, the good things get torn down without much reason.
6) Appreciate this (the research interview). This (interview) got me thinking,
critically thinking (as an elected policymaker).
7) Local governance continues to be an important topic. We see cities flagged by
corruption and mismanagement. Therefore, people do not trust elected officials. It
creates a serious challenge for us. Elected (policymakers) do an excellent job when
they are on the campaign trail, but they forget when they get into office. We live in
dynamic and uncertain times. We must remain agile and continue to pivot a
continue to keep encouraging one another. Knowing that governance is not easy,
but we are here to serve our community in the most ethical ways. We want to live
in a community that is safe and prosperous.
8) As an elected (policymaker), you must stay connected with the times: equity,
fairness, opportunity. It is not enough to just provide public services. You need to
compensate where those services have been absent in the past. The overlooked
areas see a deficit in terms of fairness, equity, and opportunity. We need a good
filter to ensure we are meeting the needs of all the citizens.
9) This (the research interview) made me think—thank you!
10) For your guide (the guide or primer), there is a practical gap between
governance and the toolkits that is missing—a lot of MPA graduates are missing the
practical aspects of what it takes. Your guide should fill that gap.
Table 54. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Quantile 6 Participants

169
Out-of-State Jurisdictions
(One elected policymaker each from Sesser, Illinois and Willoughby, Ohio)
1. Fascinating topic! I never realized that collaboration and consensus building was not the
norm—I thought everyone did it. When I took office, I realized it was not.
2. I really enjoyed this (the research interview). It made me think a great deal about the
various categories of governance and the areas we must evaluate. Want to read what you
produce.
Table 55. Question 8 Synopsis and Support Responses from Out-of-State Participants
Interpretations
The purpose of this concluding section of Chapter 5 is to set the stage for how to interpret
the results of the research study in a meaningful and practical way. The method of interpretation,
often referred to as hermeneutics,
52
can produce philosophical quandaries (e.g., the cognitive
process of determining the meaningfulness of the research collected could be interpreted, thus
creating a recursive condition). Rather than fall into a philosophical “rabbit hole” expending
effort regurgitating metaphysical discussions occurring over the past two millennia, the
evaluation of this research begins with concepts both a priori
53
and a posteriori. First, there is
knowledge already known (e.g., a priori), which is independent of the research, such as the
importance of values and ethics to one’s conduct and existence, the significance of innovation to
continued societal evolution, and the role and processes of local government. Second, there is
knowledge learned explicitly from the conduct of the research (a posteriori), such as the
importance (or triviality) of collaboration and consensus building to a local government elected
or appointed official, the value (or insignificance) of being in touch with one’s community (e.g.,
local cultural intelligence), or the significance (or insignificance) of sustainability as it relates to

52
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/
53
https://iep.utm.edu/apriori/
170
making and implementing local government policy. To address and learn these areas of
knowledge a posteriori, this research endeavor enlisted the help of 75 “experts” to assess and
evaluate a framework for good local governance comprised of four main building blocks, each
with four subcomponents. While one might argue the validity or even legitimacy of these 75
“experts,” it is clear they each possess unique knowledge and experience directly associated with
the core foundation of this research, which is local governance. Furthermore, when taken
collectively, the “voice” of these experts, as spoken through their “lived experiences,” expresses
the very knowledge sought. Consequently, the overarching goal of this in-depth and highly
rewarding endeavor is to establish an organic framework for effective and resilient local
governance, and these 75 “experts” provide the means to get there.
The next and last chapter provides a conclusion to this research endeavor by summarizing
the effort, describing what the results mean, addressing the theoretical knowledge value and
practical knowledge value of the research, providing recommendations going forward, and
discussing potential future areas of research.
171
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The concluding chapter of a work of this nature serves to close, terminate, or wrap up the
research endeavor and everything it set out to accomplish. It seeks to answer the initial questions
that brought the research process to life, provide a summary of the analysis and findings, address
any limitations and items left unanswered, and consider the significance and implications of this
research to the future of the practice. While all of these are true to one degree or another, there is
one aspect of the conclusion that is not a finale at all. In a dissertation, a conclusion is more of a
waypoint on the flightpath to loftier academic discovery. It provides a unique opportunity to
pose new areas for future, expansive exploration. It sets the stage for tomorrow’s academicians
and practitioners to critique not only the results, but also add to them, enhance them, refine them,
or even discount them entirely. This tradition is the grand purpose behind the pursuit. Human
ingenuity and the evolution of thought demand that innovative ideas, novel concepts, and
creative ways of thinking perpetually emerge. This philosophy demonstrates the genuine value
of academic discourse—discussing, augmenting, and even discounting the frameworks, theories,
and models presented. Without questions, in-depth research, and all the effort that goes into
them, however, there would be no starting point from which to begin. Thankfully, this process
started long ago, and the product of this research endeavor keeps the intellectual wheels turning.
Summary
The literature abounds with definitions of the word governance. Focusing on the public
sector, specifically, governance refers to the local political and administrative processes that
maximize the public’s interest. While maximizing the public’s interest is the prime directive,
what does it mean to have good governance? This question is not as straightforward, as it
involves more than merely managing a public entity effectively and efficiently; it involves a
172
complex multiplicity of interrelated and connected components, each with potentially varying
degrees of importance that can change over time. Furthermore, there is a multitude of parties
involved, all of whom have a stake in the governance process, and all of whom have potentially
different frames of reference and differing points of view. These stakeholders include those
leaders who are elected and appointed to govern (e.g., the policymakers and their appointees);
those members of the public (e.g., the citizenry) who collectively bestow the power of
governance to the elected policymakers and their appointees through a democratic election
process; and all the related people and entities that come in contact with a given jurisdiction,
such as business, non-governmental organization (NGO), and other non-profit leaders, religious
leaders, educational leaders, and even other governmental bodies and leaders (e.g., related
officials and entities from special districts, school districts, and county, state, and federal
agencies).
Consequently, to describe good governance requires a framework comprised of building
blocks, linkages, and an understanding of the levels of uniqueness that pertain to its application
and usage within a jurisdiction. Also, the need to sustain social prosperity at the community
level is paramount. As such, the framework must achieve prosplexity, defined as prosperity in a
complex environment (Falkow, 2013).
This research endeavor sought to establish a framework for effective and resilient local
governance. This framework is not ordinary, however, as its design had to include two distinct
characteristics. First, the framework must be valid across geographic boundaries accounting for
the disparity and variance among jurisdictions both intrastate, as well as interstate. Second, the
framework must be sustainable and possess the inherent ability to adapt to fluctuating
environmental conditions that public entities continually face; sometimes, these changing
173
conditions carry global impact, as was seen with the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020.
To accomplish this ambitious and comprehensive undertaking, it was necessary to seek expert
input, guidance, and feedback from the elected policymakers and chief appointed officials they
appoint (e.g., collectively “those at the top”) who are primarily accountable for the governance
of a public entity, which in this case is a local (e.g., city) government.
Using a well-designed, pilot-tested, and in-depth qualitative interview tool comprised of
eight questions, which included graphic displays seeking forced rankings from research
participants, 75 experts from across 40 jurisdictions (e.g., 38 in California, one in Illinois, and
one in Ohio) provided remarkably thoughtful, constructive, and critically beneficial input into the
structure and composition of a valuable and applied framework for effective and resilient local
governance. First, research participants answered two broad questions about governance and
good governance. Second, the participants saw (one at a time) four main topic areas (building
blocks): values and ethics, transformational leadership, innovation and co-creation, and strategic
planning. Each building block has four subcomponents, and participants provided a forced
ranking of the subcomponents where “1” is the most important to them, and “4” is the least
important to them from their vantage point as an elected policymaker or city manager
recognizing that the subcomponents may be very close together. Third, each of the four highest-
ranking subcomponents then appeared on a graphic depicting all 16 subcomponents, and
participants force ranked them using the same “1” to “4” scale. Fourth, the participants then
answered five additional questions to complete the interview.
The rankings, as part of question 3, provide a basis for in-depth quantitative analysis in
terms of the overall framework for effective and resilient local governance, the four main
building blocks, and the 16 subcomponents. The thoughtful and rich narratives (e.g., the “lived
174
experiences”) collected from each of the eight questions during the extensive interview process
create a valuable knowledgebase of expert perspectives from the 40 jurisdictions and paint a
stunning picture of what constitutes good governance at the local level and the value of
expanding the research in this area. The magnitude and depth of the data collected will serve as
the basis for future projects. The following section summarizes the results obtained from the
interview process.
What It Means
The primary research question sought to determine the specific and definable factors
(e.g., the building blocks, linkages, external stimuli, and areas of uniqueness) necessary to define
a framework for effective and resilient local governance. After 75 in-depth interviews with
experts in governance (e.g., 43 elected policymakers and 32 city managers across 38 California
jurisdictions with two jurisdictions outside the state), the consensus is that the four main building
blocks as shown below in Figure 64 sufficiently and adequately represent a valid framework.
175

Figure 64. Main Blocks of the Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
Furthermore, after in-depth analysis by the experts of the individual building blocks, two
valuable results emerge. First, the experts validated the necessity and importance of each
building block’s four elements, as none of the respondents indicated that a building block was
unnecessary, unneeded, or not useful. Figure 65 below depicts the four building blocks and 16
interrelated subcomponents of the framework for effective and resilient local governance.
176

Figure 65. Conceptual Framework for Effective and Resilient Local Governance
Second, using the 73 California-based participants specifically, Figure 66 below provides the
tally of #1 rankings of the subcomponents of the framework, which can denote the importance
levels of each, and based upon the direct feedback from the experts, every one of the 16
subcomponents is necessary and applicable to its respective building block, as each
subcomponent received at least one #1 ranking.
177

Figure 66. Tally of #1 Rankings from all 73 California-based Participants
As mentioned earlier, one respondent chose not to rank three of the subcomponents of the
Innovation and Co-creation building block, sharing that in this participant’s opinion, youth
development, sustainability, and technology and e-gov were not responsibilities of local
government. Instead, other entities might have the responsibility (e.g., school systems for youth
development). While it is possible this respondent did not have a clear understanding of the
three subcomponents, there were no clarifying questions asked. As such, the researcher did not
offer any additional information to avoid bias. Regardless, given the values of the #1 rankings
178
for these three subcomponents (e.g., youth development—11, sustainability—28, and technology
and e-gov—13), it is clear they are valid. Sustainability, specifically, ranked the highest in that
building block. It is imperative to realize the value of this participant’s opinion, however, as a
future enhancement to the ranking system may be the introduction of a zero rank for a
subcomponent that a participant believes does not belong or is not valid. Unfortunately, the
design of the interview tool did not consider this, and introducing it mid-way through the
interviews, would jeopardize the study. It is nonetheless important because issues such as these
could uncover design flaws.
Concerning linkages, the direct feedback from the participants confirms that relationships
do exist among the subcomponents within each building block (e.g., you cannot have public trust
without transparency and accountability, and if you have the public trust, then civic engagement
is usually less of an issue). There are also linkages between subcomponents across the building
blocks. Multiple experts pointed out that technology and e-gov, for instance, is essential to
effective bidirectional communication with constituents. For example, according to the experts,
televising city council meetings, using electronic permitting and business license systems,
providing easy-to-use online systems or mobile “apps” for public works reporting, and offering
full-text search tools for agenda items posted on the jurisdiction’s website, directly and
indirectly, aid in increasing transparency, promoting economic development, enhancing city-
business relations, and maintaining infrastructure and transportation. Examining the linkages
more closely, it is apparent that a more detailed analysis is necessary to fully develop a
descriptive network diagram that depicts all the communication pathways that may exist among
the subcomponents.
179
Concerning external stimuli, this theme was prevalent throughout the interviews. The
two most evident external stimuli are the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent stay-at-home
orders that begin in early March of 2020 and the social unrest and demonstrations that swept
across the nation beginning in late May of 2020 in response to the real and perceived social
injustices faced by many areas of society. These phenomena had a tremendous impact on local
government, its leadership, staff, and ability to provide essential public services. Given the fact
the experts brought up and discussed the framework in light of these phenomena pointing to the
high value and importance of the subcomponents as they dealt with and continue to deal with the
challenges is a testament to the framework’s strength and validity. For example, having robust
technology and e-gov helps an organization communicate with its constituency, maintain the
conduct of city business, keep the internal administration functional (including working
remotely), and continue to promote public trust when the constituency feels their voices being
heard.
Finally, areas of uniqueness are something every participant alluded to in one way or
another. Every community, from the smallest to the largest, has its own set of attributes that
make it unique; it is like a “fingerprint,” as one mayor suggested. This fingerprint may be
unique, but the finger itself still functions the same jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As such, the
quantile-based rankings may define the organic nature of the framework. What matters to one
jurisdiction (e.g., housing programs for a jurisdiction that is already 98 percent built out, or
economic development for a jurisdiction that is 95 percent residential) may not rank as highly as
it would in another jurisdiction with differing composition despite being similar in size. This
situation brings to light the need for additional research into the areas of uniqueness and how to
quantify, measure, and integrate them into the framework. On the surface, it seems that a
180
weighted factor may be applicable in a model constructed from the framework. This premise
warrants further investigation.
Finally, after evaluating the results obtained during question 3 of the interview, it is
apparent that a “1” to “4” forced ranking mechanism is insufficient in terms of the depth needed
to adequately evaluate the relative magnitude of each element of the framework. When a
respondent ranks the four subcomponents, the scoring is only one-dimensional. While this
naturally puts the elements in order of importance from that specific participant’s point of view,
it does not accurately provide a comparable system of weighted measure. In other words, if
public trust receives 58 #1 rankings, the fact that transparency receives 37 #2 rankings should
count for something. The respondents alluded to this construct when they pointed out the
difficulty in choosing between specific subcomponents. This scenario warrants deeper
exploration and examination, which may involve the use of a mathematical weighting of sorts
that provides a particular factor for a #1 rank, a slightly lower factor for a #2 rank, and so on for
#3 and #4 rankings. This situation would provide subcomponents that are close in proximity
with the benefit of having a higher number of #2 rankings. Looking specifically at economic
development and infrastructure and transportation, the #1 rankings put economic development
first over infrastructure and transportation, 34 to 32. Closer inspection, however, reveals that
infrastructure and transportation received 30 #2 rankings, while economic development received
only 20 #2 rankings. Implementation of a weight-based algorithm such as the one described may
generate a higher overall score for infrastructure and transportation.
This study also sought to address the following secondary research questions:
1. Can the design and structure of the framework factor in and anticipate challenges that
exist in the public sector?
2. Can a quantitative model emerge from the framework that accurately describes (using
statistical probability) the likelihood a local government will be prosperous?
181
3. What new or improved mechanisms, techniques, measures, or tools might enhance
the prospects for prosperity and reduce negative outcomes in the long-term?
Concerning anticipated challenges that exist in the public sector, the use of the
framework as a tool by a jurisdiction may account for this in a worthwhile fashion. One of the
city manager respondents suggested using the framework as part of an off-site strategic planning
session with his executive staff. Leveraging this idea, a city manager could also meet with a
non-majority, committee of city council members where the topic is organizational goals and
objectives. Discussing these goals and objectives in terms of the framework before bringing
them before the entire legislative body in open session may provide a solution.
Concerning the development of a quantitative model, an algorithm could provide the
weighted measures such that reuse or recalculation of the values over time may provide data for
testing and validation. Multiplying this across multiple jurisdictions would serve as a force
multiplier since it might deliver trackable and graphable real-time values, providing
opportunities for multidimensional trend analyses.
Finally, concerning improved mechanisms, techniques, measures, or tools, which might
enhance the prospects for prosperity and reduce undesirable outcomes, a web-based application
or mobile app could leverage the framework as part of an electronic checklist or automated tool.
Policymakers and appointed officials could use this tool during all phases of the policy lifecycle.
Configuration of the tool could allow for areas of uniqueness and impacts of external stimuli to
influence the results effectively. Additional research and examination may produce viable
solutions that fill this prospective need.
Theoretical Knowledge Value and Practical Knowledge Value
Looking at this research endeavor holistically, it is essential to quantify the value to the
world of theory and the world of practice. Theoretical knowledge refers to knowledge about
182
things. For example, the binary value of decimal number 12 is 1100. This type of knowledge
contrasts with things of a practical concern, such as the way to create a map using GIS software,
which refers to practical knowledge. The framework for effective and resilient local governance
that emerged from this project adds value to the world of theory. It is new theoretical knowledge
and defines the “what” in the world of theory. Using the framework as a tool to achieve good
local governance in a jurisdiction is the value to the world of practice and creates the “how.”
Coupled together, the theoretical knowledge value and practical knowledge value establishes a
new starting point for the advancement of the practice of governance. This achievement creates
four distinct opportunities. First, it provides local government leaders (e.g., elected
policymakers and their appointed officials) with a mechanism to enhance their operation from
the inside-out. By giving them a new practical tool that can strengthen the political and public
administrative processes to maximize the public’s interest, they create a better community for the
constituency they serve, which has far-reaching benefits. Second, this new framework serves as
an educational instrument for future municipal leaders who may arrive at the doorstep of good
governance but not know how to ring the bell. Third, academics and practitioners alike can now
create models and theories using this framework as a launching point. Fourth, and most
importantly, this new framework fills a small gap in the knowledge landscape, which advances
human ingenuity that much more.
Recommendations
As with all research endeavors of this caliber, new questions, innovative ideas, and fresh
hypotheses are born. These additional opportunities keep those academic wheels turning while
simultaneously enhancing the local governance domain. Specifically, the creation of an
operational model that can be employed “in the field” may serve to save many local jurisdictions
183
that are deteriorating or “dying,” as one respondent suggested, by throwing them a life preserver
or offering them a “road map,” as another respondent mentioned. Next, if an automated
algorithm could assist in the policymaking process, ensuring that decisions are always in line
with the optimized tuning of the framework, better and more effective local governance becomes
the norm. Finally, as an educational tool, the framework can be the foundation for a much-
needed practical guide, checklist, or “how-to” manual for good governance. This primer would
serve to educate newly elected policymakers and simultaneously provide a checklist for veteran
ones. It would serve to educate and prepare future city managers and, at the same time, provide
a handy reference guide to existing ones. This primer can even serve to educate the electorate by
helping those citizens inclined to understand better how the government operates and how they
can best become involved and even co-create policy. Having all three groups (e.g., elected
policymakers, city administration, and the citizenry) on the same page would be priceless; as one
respondent pointed out, “we desperately need a Local Government 101 class.”
Possible Areas of Future Research
This grand endeavor established the need for future and continued research. As with any
dynamic topic such as local governance, it is vital that the wheels keep turning. One clear area
for continued research is in the sphere of uniqueness, as it relates to local jurisdictions. This
common theme throughout the interview process shines a light on how important it is to identify
and analyze the peculiarities of each region. The multifaceted and multidimensional aspects of
local jurisdictions here in California, let alone the rest of the nation or even within other
countries, needs, or more accurately demands, a thorough and complete understanding of what
makes cities unique besides the obvious census-related criteria. Another noticeable area for
future research is the need to field test, propose enhancements to, and help cultivate a more
184
durable and vibrant framework for effective and resilient local governance. The results of this
small, yet valuable and rich study are a starting point. If the Wright Brothers chose not to follow
their dreams and pursue airplane flight resulting in that first success on December 17, 1903,
54

there would be no air travel, no human travel to the moon, and no International Space Station.
While their efforts changed the course of humanity, there is a small hope that this framework for
effective and resilient local governance can serve to help improve municipalities, one city at a
time.

54
https://www.nps.gov/wrbr/index.htm
185
References
Arnauld, A., Nicole, P., & Buroker, J. (1996). Logic, or, The art of thinking: containing, besides
common rules, several new observations appropriate for forming judgment (5th ed., rev.
and newly augmented.). Cambridge University Press.

Barber, B. (2013). If mayors ruled the world: dysfunctional nations, rising cities. Yale University
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.

Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Boland, R. (2004). Managing as designing (pp. 164-168). F. Collopy (Ed.). Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bovens, M., Goodin, R., Schillemans, T., & Gailmard, S. (2014). Accountability and Principal–
Agent Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (p. The Oxford
Handbook of Public Accountability, Chapter 016). Oxford University Press.

Capps, B. (2010). Enhancing Public Ethics: Libertarianism, Legitimation, and the Problems of
Technology Regulation. Asian Bioethics Review, 2(4), 273-287.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. 4
th
Ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DeSilver, D. (2018). U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-
developed-countries/
Diercks, C., & Yaghi, O. (2017). The atom, the molecule, and the covalent organic framework.
Science (New York, N.Y.), 355(6328), eaal1585–eaal1585.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1585

Falkow, M., & Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, Dept of National Security Affairs.
(2013). Does Homeland Security Constitute an Emerging Academic Discipline? Available at
http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/32817/13Mar_Falkow_Michael.pdf?sequence
=1

Frankena, W. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Frederickson, H., Smith, K., Larimer, C., & Licari, M. (2016). The Public Administration Theory
Primer (3rd ed.). Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494369
186
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.

Heald, D. (2012). Why is transparency about public expenditure so elusive? International
Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 30-49.

International City/County Managers’ Association (ICMA). (January 1, 2018). Forms of Local
Government Structure. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://icma.org/documents/forms-
local-government-structure.

Katz, B., & Bradley, J. (2013). The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing
Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy. In The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities
and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy (First Edition).
Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.7864/j.ctt4cg7km

Keping, Y. (2017). Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political
Analysis. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), 1–8.

Kettl, D. (2015). The Politics of the Administrative Process, 6
th
Ed., Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Khanna, P. (2017). A Conceptual Framework for Achieving Good Governance at Open and
Distance Learning Institutions. Open Learning, 32(1), 21–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1246246

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Lindblom, C. (2010). The science of "muddling" through. Emergence: Complexity and
Organization 12 (1): 70-80.

Ljungholm, D. P. (2015). Ethical Values in the Public Sector. Review of Contemporary
Philosophy, 14, 57-62.

Lynn, L., Heinrich, C., & Hill, C. (2001). Improving governance: a new logic for empirical
research . Georgetown University Press.

McGrath, M. (2013). Lessons of Bell, California. National Civic Review, 102(1), 51-54.
doi:10.1002/ncr.21115

Moustakas, C. (1994). Transcendental phenomenology: conceptual framework. In Moustakas, C.
Phenomenological research methods (pp. 25-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412995658

187
Nachef, H., Phade, U., Sturdevant, L., & Zhou, D., & University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA, Sol Price School of Public Policy. (2019). Effective public institutions in
advancing the SDGs: A conceptual framework for building effectiveness in local public
entities. Prepared for the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1‐
60.

Nicole, Pierre & Arnauld, Antoine. (1717). Logic: Or, the Art of Thinking: Containing (besides
the common rules) many new observations, that are of great use in forming an exactness
of judgment. In four parts. I. Consisting of Reflections upon the Ideas, or first Operation
of the Mind. II. Of the Reflections Men have made upon their Judgments. III. Of
Reasoning. IV. Of Method ; or the clearest Manner of demonstrating any Truth. Done
from the new French edition. By Mr. Ozell. London: Printed for William Taylor, at the
Ship in Pater-Noster-Row.

Oyserman, D. (2015). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2
nd

edition, Vol. 25. 36-40.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/201385081/

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy
Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27.

O’Toole, L., & Meier, K. (2011). Public management: organizations, governance, and
performance. Cambridge University Press.

Our global neighbourhood: The report of the Commission on Global Governance. (1995).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford University Press.$$Q Oxford University Press. (2000). Oxford English Dictionary
(Online).

Piñeiro, R. & Rosenblatt, F. (2016). Pre-Analysis Plans for Qualitative Research. Revista de
Ciencia Política. 36. 785-796. 10.4067/S0718-090X2016000300009.

Primbs, M. & Wang, C. (2016). Notable Governance Failures: Enron, Siemens and Beyond
Comparative Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. 3.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/fisch_2016/3

Putnam, R. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, (24),
34.

Quinn, M. (2017). Ethics for the information age (Seventh edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

188
Rainey, H. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (Fifth edition). Jossey-
Bass, a Wiley brand.

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA. Oxford University
Press.

Reid, K., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experience: An introduction to
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The Psychologist 18(1), 20-23.

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. UN
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987.

Rivenbark, W. C., & Ballard, E. C. (2012). Using citizen surveys to influence and document
culture change in local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3),
475-484.

Roulston, K. (2018). Qualitative interviewing and epistemics. Qualitative Research, 18(3), 322–
341.

Rothstein, B. (2012). Good Governance. In The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0010

Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2014). Theories of the policy process (Third edition). Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.

Schmitz, O. (2010). Resolving ecosystem complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schneider, V. (2012). Governance and Complexity. In The Oxford Handbook of Governance.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0009

Schuck, P. (2014). Why government fails so often: and how it can do better. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Singer, P. (1991). A Companion to ethics / edited by Peter Singer. (Blackwell companions to
philosophy). Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Reference.

Türke, R. (2008). Governance Systemic Foundation and Framework. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2080-5

Turner, D. (2010). Qualitative interview design: a practical guide for novice investigators. The
Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019, April 11). Data: 2017 Census of Governments—Organization. Table
2. Local Governments by Type and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02]. Retrieved April 27,
2019, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html

189
Vanlandingham, K. (1968). Municipal Home Rule in the United States, William & Mary Law
Review, 10(2), 269-314.

Volden, C. (2005). Intergovernmental political competition in American federalism. American
Journal of Political Science 49(2): 327-42.

Weiss, T., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Rethinking Global Governance? Complexity, Authority,
Power, Change. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 207–215.
https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12082

Wilson, J. (1967). The Bureaucracy Problem. The Public Interest, 6, 3-9. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1298118378/

Wilson, Woodrow. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2 (2): 197-
222.

Youth Development (description). https://extension.umn.edu/working‐youth/what‐youth‐
development

190
Appendices
Appendix A: USC IRB Informed Consent for Research 191

Appendix B: Interview PowerPoint Shown to Participants via Zoom 197

Appendix C: Interview Worksheet 219

Appendix D: Incorporated California Cities by Population Quantiles 236

Appendix E: Representative Sample of the 38 California Cities 243

Appendix F: Cities Outside of California 244

Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities 245

Appendix H: Sample Email Invitation to Participate 287

Appendix I: Additional Graphical Analyses of Frequency Distributions 288

Appendix J: Raw Ranking Data 297
191
Appendix A: USC IRB Informed Consent for Research

192

193

194

195

196

197
Appendix B: Interview PowerPoint Shown to Participants via Zoom

198
Interview PowerPoint Slide 1

199
Interview PowerPoint Slide 2

200
Interview PowerPoint Slide 3

201
Interview PowerPoint Slide 4

202
Interview PowerPoint Slide 5

203
Interview PowerPoint Slide 6

204
Interview PowerPoint Slide 7

205
Interview PowerPoint Slide 8

206
Interview PowerPoint Slide 9

207
Interview PowerPoint Slide 10

208
Interview PowerPoint Slide 11

209
Interview PowerPoint Slide 12

210
Interview PowerPoint Slide 13

211
Interview PowerPoint Slide 14

212
Interview PowerPoint Slide 15

Note: The researcher completed the boxes with the participant’s ranking values from the
previous four slides “live” during the interview.

This afforded the participant the opportunity to cross-verify and validate their choices
and approve their final ranking.
213
Interview PowerPoint Slide 16

Note: The researcher completed the boxes with the participant’s highest ranking values from
the previous slide “live” during the interview and asked the participant to rank order
their #1s using a 1 through 4 ranking.

This process occurred “live” during the interview so participants could cross-verify
and validate their choices and approve their final rankings. Saving each file then
preserves the data.
214
Interview PowerPoint Slide 17

215
Interview PowerPoint Slide 18

216
Interview PowerPoint Slide 19

217
Interview PowerPoint Slide 20

218
Interview PowerPoint Slide 21

219
Appendix C: Interview Worksheet

220

221

222

223

224
225
226

227

228
229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236
Appendix D: Incorporated California Cities by Population Quantiles

237
Quantile 1—80 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 112 - 7,275)
55

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

Vernon 112
Amador City 185
Industry 219
Sand City 334
Trinidad 367
Tehama 418
Point Arena 449
Etna 737
Loyalton 769
Isleton 804
Fort Jones 839
Dorris 939
Plymouth 1,005
Tulelake 1,010
BRADBURY 1,048
Maricopa 1,154
Blue Lake 1,253
Ferndale 1,371
Irwindale 1,422
Montague 1,443
Del Rey Oaks 1,624
Dunsmuir 1,650
Biggs 1,707
Colma 1,792
HIDDEN HILLS 1,856
ROLLING HILLS 1,860
San Juan Bautista 1,862
Colfax 1,963
Belvedere 2,068
Portola 2,104
Westmorland 2,225
Ross 2,415
Sutter Creek 2,501
Alturas 2,827
Yountville 2,933
Weed 2,967
Nevada City 3,068
Monte Sereno 3,341
Rio Dell 3,368
Mount Shasta 3,394
Wheatland 3,456
Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,722
AVALON 3,728
Angels Camp 3,836
Bishop 3,879
San Joaquin 4,001
Del Mar 4,161
Brisbane 4,282
Portola Valley 4,353
Jackson 4,651
Lakeport 4,753
Buellton 4,828
Needles 4,844
Willits 4,888
Sonora 4,903
Dos Palos 4,950
INDIAN WELLS 4,958
Big Bear Lake 5,019
Williams 5,123
Calistoga 5,155
Solvang 5,245
Woodside 5,287
La Habra Heights 5,325
Gustine 5,520
Fowler 5,570
VILLA PARK 5,812
St. Helena 5,814
Holtville 5,939
Colusa 5,971
Willows 6,166
Loomis 6,430
Gridley 6,584
Winters 6,624
Hughson 6,640
Huron 6,754
Atherton 6,914
Sausalito 7,061
Guadalupe 7,080
Escalon 7,132
Cotati 7,265

55
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx

238
Quantile 2—80 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 7,275 - 15,525)
56

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

Fort Bragg 7,273
Woodlake 7,279
Orland 7,291
Rio Vista 7,360
Sebastopol 7,379
Fairfax 7,441
Ojai 7,461
Firebaugh 7,549
Crescent City 7,643
PISMO BEACH 7,655
Corning 7,663
Calipatria 7,705
Yreka 7,765
Calimesa 7,879
Ione 7,918
Los Altos Hills 7,922
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 8,067
Gonzales 8,187
Mammoth Lakes 8,234
WESTLAKE VILLAGE 8,270
Live Oak 8,392
Waterford 8,456
Cloverdale 8,618
Tiburon 8,962
Orange Cove 9,078
Corte Madera 9,253
Taft 9,327
Capitola 9,918
Anderson 9,932
Emeryville 10,080
Shasta Lake 10,164
Newman 10,224
Morro Bay 10,234
Exeter 10,334
Placerville 10,389
Canyon Lake 10,561
Farmersville 10,588
Sonoma 10,648
Piedmont 10,667
Hillsborough 10,825

56
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx
Clayton 10,897
SIERRA MADRE 10,917
Mendota 11,014
Signal Hill 11,016
Healdsburg 11,254
Half Moon Bay 11,324
Kingsburg 11,382
Los Alamitos 11,449
Scotts Valley 11,580
Lindsay 11,768
Fortuna 11,926
Larkspur 11,926
Grand Terrace 12,040
Marysville 12,072
San Anselmo 12,336
MALIBU 12,645
McFarland 12,707
Commerce 12,823
Grass Valley 12,860
Solana Beach 12,867
King City 12,874
Carpinteria 13,040
Livingston 13,058
SAN MARINO 13,147
Grover Beach 13,156
Auburn 13,330
Coalinga 13,380
PALOS VERDES ESTATES 13,438
Kerman 13,544
Mill Valley 13,903
Red Bluff 14,076
California City 14,120
Hawaiian Gardens 14,254
Ripon 14,297
Tehachapi 14,414
Parlier 14,494
Imperial 14,758
Fillmore 15,002
Pacific Grove 15,041
Clearlake 15,250

Quantile 3—81 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 15,525 – 29,000)
57

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

Avenal 15,505
Oroville 15,546
La Palma 15,568
Moraga 16,016
Ukiah 16,075
Truckee 16,180
Laguna Woods 16,192
Santa Fe Springs 16,223
Greenfield 16,330
ARTESIA 16,522
EL SEGUNDO 16,654
Shafter 16,988
Rancho Mirage 17,218
Arcata 17,231
Arroyo Grande 17,252
Orinda 17,643
Susanville 17,947
Lathrop 18,023
Dixon 18,351
Pinole 18,390
Albany 18,539
Chowchilla 18,720
Coronado 18,912
Arvin 19,304
American Canyon 19,454
Hermosa Beach 19,506
Marina 19,718
South El Monte 20,116
LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE 20,246
LOMITA 20,256
AGOURA HILLS 20,330
Patterson 20,413
Oakdale 20,675
Yucca Valley 20,700
Blythe 20,817
Duarte 21,321
South Lake Tahoe 21,403
Dinuba 21,453
Millbrae 21,532
Port Hueneme 21,723
Barstow 22,639

57
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx
Riverbank 22,678
Laguna Beach 22,723
CALABASAS 23,058
Selma 23,219
Loma Linda 23,261
El Cerrito 23,549
San Fernando 23,645
Galt 23,647
Cudahy 23,805
Lafayette 23,893
Hercules 24,060
Seal Beach 24,168
Reedley 24,194
Sanger 24,270
Lemoore 24,531
Corcoran 24,813
Brawley 24,953
Twentynine Palms 25,048
Lemon Grove 25,320
Wasco 25,545
South Pasadena 25,619
Soledad 25,738
Belmont 25,835
Desert Hot Springs 25,938
Paradise 26,218
Imperial Beach 26,324
Windsor 26,801
Benicia 26,997
Norco 27,063
Eureka 27,191
Maywood 27,395
Ridgecrest 27,616
Monterey 27,810
Suisun City 28,111
East Palo Alto 28,155
Atwater 28,168
Atascadero 28,310
San Carlos 28,406
Burlingame 28,806
Los Altos 28,976

Quantile 4—80 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 29,000 – 53,100)
58

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

San Pablo 29,139
WALNUT 29,172
Santa Paula 29,321
Los Gatos 29,413
Banning 29,603
Paso Robles 29,793
Goleta 29,888
Saratoga 29,926
Laguna Hills 30,344
Foster City 30,567
La Verne 31,063
Adelanto 31,765
Menlo Park 32,026
Wildomar 32,176
Lawndale 32,769
Seaside 33,025
Pleasant Hill 33,152
Dana Point 33,351
San Dimas 33,371
Beverly Hills 34,109
WEST HOLLYWOOD 34,399
Moorpark 34,421
San Juan Capistrano 34,593
Claremont 34,926
Hollister 34,928
MANHATTAN BEACH 35,135
Oakley 35,432
BELL 35,477
Temple City 35,558
Martinez 35,824
Los Baños 35,972
MONROVIA 36,590
Montclair 36,664
Beaumont 36,877
Pacifica 37,234
La Quinta 37,467
Morgan Hill 37,882
Stanton 38,186
Calexico 38,572
Culver City 38,883

58
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx
Brea 39,282
Campbell 39,349
San Gabriel 39,718
La Puente 39,816
Coachella 40,704
Rohnert Park 40,971
San Bruno 41,114
RANCHO PALOS VERDES 41,643
Danville 42,039
Bell Gardens 42,072
Lompoc 42,434
Newark 42,573
El Centro 42,598
Lincoln 42,819
San Jacinto 44,199
Palm Springs 44,552
San Luis Obispo 45,119
Ceres 45,417
Dublin 46,036
Azusa 46,361
Covina 47,796
Cypress 47,802
Poway 47,811
Aliso Viejo 47,823
Rancho Santa Margarita 47,853
Palm Desert 48,445
La Mirada 48,527
West Sacramento 48,744
Gilroy 48,821
Cerritos 49,041
Glendora 50,073
Placentia 50,533
Watsonville 51,199
Cathedral City 51,200
Yucaipa 51,367
Brentwood 51,481
Lake Elsinore 51,821
Novato 51,904
Colton 52,154
Delano 53,041

Quantile 5—80 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 53,100 – 89,730)
59

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

Highland 53,104
Santee 53,413
Eastvale 53,712
ROSEMEAD 53,764
Hanford 53,967
Paramount 54,098
Porterville 54,165
Fountain Valley 55,313
Woodland 55,468
Diamond Bar 55,544
ARCADIA 56,364
Rocklin 56,974
La Mesa 57,065
San Rafael 57,713
Petaluma 57,941
Huntington Park 58,114
Cupertino 58,302
National City 58,582
Gardena 58,829
Tulare 59,278
Encinitas 59,518
Santa Cruz 59,946
La Habra 60,239
Monterey Park 60,269
Madera 61,416
Lodi 62,134
Montebello 62,500
PICO RIVERA 62,942
Laguna Niguel 62,979
Pittsburg 63,264
San Clemente 63,522
South San Francisco 63,632
Walnut Creek 64,173
Yorba Linda 64,234
Palo Alto 64,403
Rancho Cordova 64,776
Yuba City 64,925
Camarillo 65,201
Davis 65,622
Redondo Beach 66,748

59
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx
Milpitas 66,790
Manteca 67,096
Perris 68,386
Turlock 68,549
Redlands 68,747
Apple Valley 69,135
Union City 69,516
LYNWOOD 69,772
Pleasanton 70,285
San Ramon 72,148
Folsom 72,203
Upland 73,732
Alameda 73,812
Mountain View 74,066
Chino Hills 74,799
Baldwin Park 75,390
Tustin 75,540
Indio 76,036
BELLFLOWER 76,616
Redwood City 76,815
Napa 76,915
Lake Forest 77,264
Menifee 77,519
Chino 77,983
Hemet 78,657
Merced 78,958
LAKEWOOD 80,048
Buena Park 80,530
Livermore 80,968
Tracy 82,922
Alhambra 83,089
Citrus Heights 83,301
San Marcos 83,781
Hawthorne 84,293
San Leandro 84,950
Newport Beach 85,186
Whittier 85,331
Chico 86,187
Santa Barbara 88,410
Westminster 89,701

Quantile 6—81 Cities (2010 U.S. Census Population 89,730 – 3,792,621)
60

(Participant Cities shown boxed in Bold UPPERCASE Font)

Santa Monica 89,736
Redding 89,861
Hesperia 90,173
Carson 91,714
Vacaville 92,428
Mission Viejo 93,305
Vista 93,834
SOUTH GATE 94,396
Jurupa Valley 94,989
Clovis 95,631
Compton 96,455
San Mateo 97,207
Rialto 99,171
El Cajon 99,478
Santa Maria 99,553
Temecula 100,097
Daly City 101,123
Antioch 102,372
BURBANK 103,340
Murrieta 103,466
Richmond 103,701
Fairfield 105,321
Carlsbad 105,328
Norwalk 105,549
West Covina 106,098
Ventura 106,433
Inglewood 109,673
Costa Mesa 109,960
DOWNEY 111,772
Berkeley 112,580
El Monte 113,475
Victorville 115,903
Vallejo 115,942
Santa Clara 116,468
Roseville 118,788
Concord 122,067
Simi Valley 124,237
Visalia 124,442
Thousand Oaks 126,683
Fullerton 135,161
Orange 136,416

60
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx
Pasadena 137,122
Sunnyvale 140,081
Escondido 143,911
Hayward 144,186
Torrance 145,438
Pomona 149,058
Salinas 150,441
Corona 152,374
Palmdale 152,750
Elk Grove 153,015
Lancaster 156,633
Ontario 163,924
Rancho Cucamonga 165,269
Oceanside 167,086
Santa Rosa 167,815
Garden Grove 170,883
Santa Clarita 176,320
Huntington Beach 189,992
Glendale 191,719
Moreno Valley 193,365
Fontana 196,069
Oxnard 197,899
Modesto 201,165
San Bernardino 209,924
Irvine 212,375
Fremont 214,089
Chula Vista 243,916
Stockton 291,707
Riverside 303,871
Santa Ana 324,528
ANAHEIM 336,265
Bakersfield 347,483
Oakland 390,724
LONG BEACH 462,257
Sacramento 466,488
Fresno 494,665
SAN FRANCISCO 805,235
San Jose 945,942
San Diego 1,307,402
LOS ANGELES 3,792,621

Appendix E: Representative Sample of the 38 California Cities
Population
Quantile
Jurisdiction # City
U.S. Census Population (April 1, 2010)
[From Column B, Rows Listed Below]
61

1 1 1 Bradbury 1,048 Row 49
2 1 2 Hidden Hills 1,856 Row 183
3 1 3 Indian Wells 4,958 Row 194
4 1 4 Avalon 3,728 Row 28
5 1 5 Villa Park 5,812 Row 455
6 1 6 Rolling Hills 1,860 Row 359
7 2 1 Malibu 12,645 Row 252
8 2 2 Rolling Hills Estates 8,067 Row 360
9 2 3 Palos Verdes Estates 13,438 Row 313
10 2 4 Sierra Madre 10,917 Row 413
11 2 5 San Marino 13,147 Row 388
12 2 6 Westlake Village 8,270 Row 466
13 2 7 Pismo Beach 7,655 Row 324
14 3 1 Artesia 16,522 Row 22
15 3 2 Calabasas 23,058 Row 58
16 3 3 La Cañada Flintridge 20,246 Row 207
17 3 4 Lomita 20,256 Row 238
18 3 5 Agoura Hills 20,330 Row 6
19 3 6 El Segundo 16,654 Row 133
20 4 1 Manhattan Beach 35,135 Row 254
21 4 2 Rancho Palos Verdes 41,643 Row 341
22 4 3 West Hollywood 34,399 Row 465
23 4 4 Monrovia 36,590 Row 270
24 4 5 Bell 35,477 Row 36
25 4 6 Walnut 29,172 Row 458
26 5 1 Bellflower 76,616 Row 37
27 5 2 Lakewood 80,048 Row 218
28 5 3 Lynwood 69,772 Row 249
29 5 4 Pico Rivera 62,942 Row 321
30 5 5 Rosemead 53,764 Row 361
31 5 6 Arcadia 56,364 Row 19
32 6 1 Burbank 103,340 Row 56
33 6 2 Long Beach 462,257 Row 240
34 6 3 Anaheim 336,265 Row 14
35 6 4 South Gate 94,396 Row 422
36 6 5 Los Angeles 3,792,621 Row 245
37 6 6 Downey 111,772 Row 121
38 6 7 San Francisco 805,235 Row 377

61
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
06.xlsx

244
Appendix F: Cities Outside of California
Population
Quantile
Jurisdiction # City, State
U.S. Census Population
(April 1, 2010)
1 1 7 Sesser, Illinois 1,931
62

2 3 7 Willoughby, Ohio 22,268
63

62
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
17.xlsx (Row 1070, Column B)
63
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
39.xlsx (Row 906, Column B)

245
Appendix G: Census Profiles of Participating Cities
The following information is available from the U.S. Census Bureau 2018 American
Community Survey (ACS) (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/), which provides
recent information and statistics about a city’s people and population, race and ethnicity
breakdowns, health (e.g., disabilities within the jurisdiction), educational attainment, business
and ownership statistics, economic data, commuting statistics , and income levels by male and
female.

Note: The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term Census Designated Place (CDP) to represent
incorporated jurisdictions. For the purposes of this research endeavor, the terms city,
jurisdiction, and municipality are equivalent to a CDP. For more information on the term
CDP, see https://www.census.gov/data/academy/data-gems/2018/cdp.html

For each participating jurisdiction, there is a snapshot showing a local map, geographic
size in square miles, recent population (2018), median household income, poverty rate, and
employment rate.

For ease of reference, a table listing each participating jurisdiction with a link to its full
2018 ACS profile page appears at the end of this Appendix.

246
Agoura Hills, California

Figure 67. Agoura Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
64

64
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0600394

247
Anaheim, California

Figure 68. Anaheim, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
65

65
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602000

248
Arcadia, California

Figure 69. Arcadia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
66

66
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602462

249
Artesia, California

Figure 70. Artesia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
67

67
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602896

250
Avalon, California

Figure 71. Avalon, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
68

68
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0603274

251
Bell, California

Figure 72. Bell, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
69

69
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0604870

252
Bellflower, California

Figure 73. Bellflower, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
70

70
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0604982

253
Bradbury, California

Figure 74. Bradbury, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
71

71
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0607946

254
Burbank, California

Figure 75. Burbank, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
72

72
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0608954

255
Calabasas, California

Figure 76. Calabasas, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
73

73
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0609598

256
Downey, California

Figure 77. Downey, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
74

74
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0619766

257
El Segundo, California

Figure 78. El Segundo, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
75

75
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0622412

258
Hidden Hills, California

Figure 79. Hidden Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
76

76
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0633518

259
Indian Wells, California

Figure 80. Indian Wells, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
77

77
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0636434

260
La Cañada Flintridge, California

Figure 81. La Cañada Flintridge, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
78

78
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0639003

261
Lakewood, California

Figure 82. Lakewood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
79

79
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0639892

262
Lomita, California

Figure 83. Lomita, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
80

80
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0642468

263
Long Beach, California

Figure 84. Long Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
81

81
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0643000

264
Los Angeles, California

Figure 85. Los Angeles, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
82

82
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0644000

265
Lynwood, California

Figure 86. Lynwood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
83

83
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0644574

266
Malibu, California

Figure 87. Malibu, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
84

84
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0645246

267
Manhattan Beach, California

Figure 88. Manhattan Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
85

85
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0645400

268
Monrovia, California

Figure 89. Monrovia, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
86

86
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0648648

269
Palos Verdes Estates, California

Figure 90. Palos Verdes Estates, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
87

87
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0655380

270
Pico Rivera, California

Figure 91. Pico Rivera, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
88

88
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0656924

271
Pismo Beach, California

Figure 92. Pismo Beach, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
89

89
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0657414

272
Rancho Palos Verdes, California

Figure 93. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
90

90
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0659514

273
Rolling Hills, California

Figure 94. Rolling Hills, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
91

91
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662602

274
Rolling Hills Estates, California

Figure 95. Rolling Hils Estates, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
92

92
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662644

275
Rosemead, California

Figure 96. Rosemead, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
93

93
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662896

276
San Francisco, California

Figure 97. San Francisco, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
94

94
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0667000

277
San Marino, California

Figure 98. San Marino, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
95

95
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0668224

278
Sesser, Illinois

Figure 99. Sesser, IL 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
96

96
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US1768705

279
Sierra Madre, California

Figure 100. Sierra Madre, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
97

97
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0671806

280
South Gate, California

Figure 101. South Gate, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
98

98
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0673080

281
Villa Park, California

Figure 102. Villa Park, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
99

99
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0682744

282
Walnut, California

Figure 103. Walnut, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
100

100
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0683332

283
West Hollywood, California

Figure 104. West Hollywood, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
101

101
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0684410

284
Westlake Village, California

Figure 105. Westlake Village, CA 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
102

102
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0684438

285
Willoughby, Ohio

Figure 106. Willoughby, OH 2018 ACS Profile Snapshot
103

103
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US3985484

286
Jurisdiction
U.S. Census Bureau 2018 American Community Survey
(ACS) Profile Link
1. Agoura Hills, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0600394
2. Anaheim, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602000
3. Arcadia, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602462
4. Artesia, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0602896
5. Avalon, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0603274
6. Bell, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0604870
7. Bellflower, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0604982
8. Bradbury, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0607946
9. Burbank, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0608954
10. Calabasas, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0609598
11. Downey, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0619766
12. El Segundo, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0622412
13. Hidden Hills, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0633518
14. Indian Wells, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0636434
15. La Cañada Flintridge, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0639003
16. Lakewood, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0639892
17. Lomita, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0642468
18. Long Beach, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0643000
19. Los Angeles, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0644000
20. Lynwood, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0644574
21. Malibu, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0645246
22. Manhattan Beach, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0645400
23. Monrovia, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0648648
24. Palos Verdes Estates, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0655380
25. Pico Rivera, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0656924
26. Pismo Beach, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0657414
27. Rancho Palos Verdes, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0659514
28. Rolling Hills, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662602
29. Rolling Hills Estates, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662644
30. Rosemead, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0662896
31. San Francisco, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0667000
32. San Marino, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0668224
33. Sesser, Illinois https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US1768705
34. Sierra Madre, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0671806
35. South Gate, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0673080
36. Villa Park, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0682744
37. Walnut, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0683332
38. West Hollywood, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0684410
39. Westlake Village, California https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0684438
40. Willoughby, Ohio https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US3985484
Table 56. U.S. Census Bureau 2018 American Community Survey Links

287
Appendix H: Sample Email Invitation to Participate

288
Appendix I: Additional Graphical Analyses of Frequency Distributions

289
Values and Ethics Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings
These four graphs depict the #1 to #4 rankings for the Values and Ethics building block
for all 73 California participants.

Figure 107. Values and Ethics Frequency Distributions of #1 through #4 Rankings

290
Transformational Leadership Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings
These four graphs depict the #1 to #4 rankings for the Transformational Leadership
building block for all 73 California participants.

Figure 108. Transformational Leadership
Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings

291
Innovation and Co-creation Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings
These four graphs depict the #1 to #4 rankings for the Innovation and Co-creation
building block for all 73 California participants.

Figure 109. Innovation and Co-creation
Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings

292
Strategic Planning Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings
These four graphs depict the #1 to #4 rankings for the Strategic Planning building block
for all 73 California participants.

Figure 110. Strategic Planning
Frequency Distributions of #1 to #4 Rankings

293
Comparisons Between California Policymakers and City Managers
Values and Ethics Building Block

Figure 111. Values and Ethics Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers

294
Transformational Leadership Building Block

Figure 112. Transformational Leadership Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers

295
Innovation and Co-creation Building Block

Figure 113. Innovation and Co-creation Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers

296
Strategic Planning Building Block

Figure 114. Strategic Planning Comparison—Policymakers and City Managers

297
Appendix J: Raw Ranking Data
The following data represents the raw ranking data from each jurisdiction broken down
by building block. The rows of data are in a random order within the quantile.
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Values and Ethics
Public Trust Civic Oversight Transparency Accountability
1 Elected 1 4 2 3
1 Elected 1 3 2 4
1 Elected 1 3 2 4
1 Elected 1 3 2 4
1 Elected 1 4 2 3
1 Elected 1 4 2 3
1 Appointed 1 3 4 2
1 Appointed 1 3 2 4
1 Appointed 2 3 1 4
1 Appointed 1 4 3 2
1 Appointed 2 4 1 3
2 Elected 1 4 2 3
2 Elected 1 3 2 4
2 Elected 1 4 2 3
2 Elected 1 4 2 3
2 Elected 1 3 2 4
2 Elected 3 4 1 2
2 Elected 1 4 2 3
2 Elected 1 3 4 2
2 Appointed 2 4 3 1
2 Appointed 1 3 2 4
2 Appointed 1 4 3 2
2 Appointed 2 4 1 3
2 Appointed 1 4 3 2
2 Appointed 1 4 2 3
2 Appointed 1 4 2 3
3 Elected 1 4 2 3
3 Elected 1 4 2 3
3 Elected 2 1 4 3
3 Elected 1 4 2 3
3 Elected 2 4 1 3
3 Elected 1 4 3 2
3 Appointed 1 3 2 4
3 Appointed 1 4 3 2
3 Appointed 1 3 2 4
3 Appointed 1 4 2 3
3 Appointed 1 4 2 3

298
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Values and Ethics
Public Trust Civic Oversight Transparency Accountability
4 Elected 4 2 3 1
4 Elected 1 2 3 4
4 Elected 1 3 4 2
4 Elected 2 4 1 3
4 Elected 1 2 4 3
4 Elected 1 4 2 3
4 Appointed 1 4 2 3
4 Appointed 1 4 2 3
4 Appointed 1 3 4 2
4 Appointed 1 4 2 3
4 Appointed 1 4 2 3
5 Elected 1 4 3 2
5 Elected 1 2 4 3
5 Elected 3 2 1 4
5 Elected 1 4 2 3
5 Elected 3 4 1 2
5 Elected 1 3 2 4
5 Appointed 1 4 3 2
5 Appointed 1 3 4 2
5 Appointed 1 4 2 3
5 Appointed 1 4 2 3
5 Appointed 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 1 3 4 2
6 Elected 1 4 2 3
6 Elected 1 4 2 3
6 Elected 1 2 4 3
6 Elected 4 1 2 3
6 Elected 1 3 4 2
6 Elected 2 4 1 3
6 Elected 2 4 1 3
6 Elected 1 3 2 4
6 Appointed 1 3 4 2
6 Appointed 1 2 4 3
6 Appointed 1 2 4 3
6 Appointed 2 3 4 1
6 Appointed 1 4 2 3

Sesser, Illinois Elected 4 3 1 2
Willoughby, Ohio Elected 1 4 3 2

299
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Transformational Leadership
Collaboration
and
Consensus
Building
Internal
Administration
Public Safety
Local Cultural
Intelligence
1 Elected 3 4 2 1
1 Elected 4 2 1 3
1 Elected 4 3 1 2
1 Elected 1 2 3 4
1 Elected 2 4 1 3
1 Elected 3 2 1 4
1 Appointed 3 2 4 1
1 Appointed 1 3 2 4
1 Appointed 4 1 2 3
1 Appointed 3 4 1 2
1 Appointed 2 3 4 1
2 Elected 2 3 1 4
2 Elected 3 4 1 2
2 Elected 1 3 2 4
2 Elected 3 4 2 1
2 Elected 2 3 1 4
2 Elected 1 3 4 2
2 Elected 3 2 1 4
2 Elected 1 2 4 3
2 Appointed 2 4 3 1
2 Appointed 2 3 1 4
2 Appointed 1 3 4 2
2 Appointed 1 3 4 2
2 Appointed 3 2 4 1
2 Appointed 1 4 3 2
2 Appointed 2 3 4 1
3 Elected 2 4 1 3
3 Elected 4 2 1 3
3 Elected 2 4 3 1
3 Elected 2 3 1 4
3 Elected 1 4 3 2
3 Elected 1 3 4 2
3 Appointed 1 2 3 4
3 Appointed 3 2 1 4
3 Appointed 2 3 4 1
3 Appointed 1 2 3 4
3 Appointed 1 3 4 2
4 Elected 3 2 1 4
4 Elected 2 3 1 4
4 Elected 2 3 1 4
4 Elected 4 2 1 3

300
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Transformational Leadership
Collaboration
and
Consensus
Building
Internal
Administration
Public Safety
Local Cultural
Intelligence
4 Elected 1 2 4 3
4 Elected 4 3 1 2
4 Appointed 2 4 1 3
4 Appointed 2 4 1 3
4 Appointed 3 2 4 1
4 Appointed 1 2 4 3
4 Appointed 4 2 1 3
5 Elected 2 3 4 1
5 Elected 2 4 3 1
5 Elected 1 2 3 4
5 Elected 2 3 1 4
5 Elected 4 1 3 2
5 Elected 1 2 4 3
5 Appointed 2 3 4 1
5 Appointed 3 4 1 2
5 Appointed 1 3 4 2
5 Appointed 3 2 1 4
5 Appointed 2 3 4 1
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 3 1 4 2
6 Elected 3 4 2 1
6 Elected 2 3 1 4
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 2 4 3 1
6 Elected 2 3 1 4
6 Elected 3 1 2 4
6 Elected 2 3 4 1
6 Appointed 2 1 3 4
6 Appointed 4 3 1 2
6 Appointed 2 1 4 3
6 Appointed 3 2 1 4
6 Appointed 1 2 3 4

Sesser, Illinois Elected 2 4 3 1
Willoughby, Ohio Elected 2 3 4 1

301
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Innovation and Co‐creation
Youth
Development
Sustainability
Technology and
e‐Gov
City‐Business
Relations
1 Elected 3 1 2 4
1 Elected 3 2 1 4
1 Elected 4 2 3 1
1 Elected 1 2 3 4
1 Elected 3 2 1 4
1 Elected 4 1 3 2
1 Appointed 1 4 3 2
1 Appointed 4 1 3 2
1 Appointed 4 3 1 2
1 Appointed 4 1 2 3
1 Appointed 3 4 2 1
2 Elected 3 1 2 4
2 Elected 2 1 3 4
2 Elected 3 2 1 4
2 Elected 4 1 2 3
2 Elected 3 1 4 2
2 Elected 1 2 3 4
2 Elected 2 4 3 1
2 Elected 3 2 4 1
2 Appointed 4 2 1 3
2 Appointed 4 2 1 3
2 Appointed 4 1 3 2
2 Appointed 4 1 2 3
2 Appointed 3 4 1 2
2 Appointed 4 2 3 1
2 Appointed 4 2 1 3
3 Elected 1 3 4 2
3 Elected 4 3 2 1
3 Elected 4 1 2 3
3 Elected 3 2 4 1
3 Elected 2 1 3 4
3 Elected 3 2 4 1
3 Appointed 4 2 3 1
3 Appointed 4 3 1 2
3 Appointed 2 1 4 3
3 Appointed 3 1 2 4
3 Appointed 1 3 2 4
4 Elected 0 0 0 1
4 Elected 4 1 3 2
4 Elected 4 3 2 1
4 Elected 3 1 2 4
4 Elected 1 3 4 2

302
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Innovation and Co‐creation
Youth
Development
Sustainability
Technology and
e‐Gov
City‐Business
Relations
4 Elected 1 3 2 4
4 Appointed 2 1 4 3
4 Appointed 4 1 3 2
4 Appointed 4 2 3 1
4 Appointed 3 1 4 2
4 Appointed 4 2 3 1
5 Elected 4 1 2 3
5 Elected 4 1 3 2
5 Elected 1 4 2 3
5 Elected 3 1 4 2
5 Elected 4 2 1 3
5 Elected 4 1 2 3
5 Appointed 2 1 4 3
5 Appointed 4 1 2 3
5 Appointed 2 4 1 3
5 Appointed 3 4 1 2
5 Appointed 4 1 3 2
6 Elected 4 2 3 1
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 4 2 3 1
6 Elected 4 3 2 1
6 Elected 2 1 3 4
6 Elected 3 4 2 1
6 Elected 3 1 2 4
6 Elected 2 4 3 1
6 Elected 1 2 4 3
6 Appointed 2 3 1 4
6 Appointed 4 3 2 1
6 Appointed 1 4 3 2
6 Appointed 3 4 2 1
6 Appointed 4 3 2 1

Sesser, Illinois Elected 1 2 3 4
Willoughby, Ohio Elected 1 2 3 4

303
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Strategic Planning
Economic
Development
Community
Services and
the Arts
Housing Programs
Infrastructure &
Transportation
1 Elected 1 2 4 3
1 Elected 2 4 3 1
1 Elected 1 2 3 4
1 Elected 3 4 1 2
1 Elected 1 3 4 2
1 Elected 3 4 1 2
1 Appointed 1 3 4 2
1 Appointed 2 4 3 1
1 Appointed 2 3 4 1
1 Appointed 2 4 3 1
1 Appointed 4 3 2 1
2 Elected 1 3 4 2
2 Elected 2 3 4 1
2 Elected 3 2 4 1
2 Elected 2 3 4 1
2 Elected 2 3 4 1
2 Elected 4 2 3 1
2 Elected 1 4 3 2
2 Elected 2 3 4 1
2 Appointed 1 4 3 2
2 Appointed 2 3 4 1
2 Appointed 1 3 4 2
2 Appointed 3 2 4 1
2 Appointed 1 2 4 3
2 Appointed 1 4 3 2
2 Appointed 1 2 4 3
3 Elected 1 4 3 2
3 Elected 1 4 3 2
3 Elected 2 3 4 1
3 Elected 2 3 4 1
3 Elected 1 2 4 3
3 Elected 1 4 3 2
3 Appointed 1 4 2 3
3 Appointed 2 4 3 1
3 Appointed 3 2 4 1
3 Appointed 3 4 2 1
3 Appointed 4 3 2 1
4 Elected 1 4 3 2
4 Elected 1 4 3 2
4 Elected 2 4 3 1
4 Elected 2 4 3 1

304
Population Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Strategic Planning
Economic
Development
Community
Services and
the Arts
Housing Programs
Infrastructure &
Transportation
4 Elected 4 2 3 1
4 Elected 2 1 4 3
4 Appointed 1 3 4 2
4 Appointed 2 4 3 1
4 Appointed 1 2 3 4
4 Appointed 4 2 3 1
4 Appointed 3 4 2 1
5 Elected 2 3 4 1
5 Elected 1 3 4 2
5 Elected 1 4 2 3
5 Elected 1 4 3 2
5 Elected 1 4 3 2
5 Elected 1 3 4 2
5 Appointed 3 4 2 1
5 Appointed 1 3 4 2
5 Appointed 2 3 4 1
5 Appointed 1 4 3 2
5 Appointed 3 4 2 1
6 Elected 4 3 1 2
6 Elected 2 4 3 1
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 2 3 4 1
6 Elected 1 3 2 4
6 Elected 1 4 3 2
6 Elected 1 3 4 2
6 Elected 4 2 1 3
6 Appointed 3 4 1 2
6 Appointed 3 4 2 1
6 Appointed 1 4 3 2
6 Appointed 3 4 1 2
6 Appointed 1 3 4 2

Sesser, Illinois Elected 4 3 2 1
Willoughby, Ohio Elected 2 1 4 3

305
Population
Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Overall Ranking
#1 #2 #3 #4
1 Elected
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Sustainability
Economic
Development
Public Trust
1 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Technology and
e‐Gov
Infrastructure &
Transportation
1 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
1 Elected Housing Programs
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Public Trust Youth Development
1 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Economic
Development
Technology and
e‐Gov
1 Elected Public Safety Public Trust Housing Programs Sustainability
1 Appointed Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Economic
Development
Youth Development
1 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
1 Appointed
Internal
Administration
Transparency
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Technology and
e‐Gov
1 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
1 Appointed Transparency
Local Cultural
Intelligence
City‐Business
Relations
Infrastructure &
Transportation
2 Elected Public Safety Public Trust Sustainability
Economic
Development
2 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
2 Elected Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Technology and
e‐Gov
Infrastructure &
Transportation
2 Elected Public Trust Sustainability
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Local Cultural
Intelligence
2 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
2 Elected Transparency
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Youth Development
Infrastructure &
Transportation
2 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
2 Elected Public Trust
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
City‐Business
Relations
2 Appointed Accountability
Economic
Development
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Technology and
e‐Gov
2 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Technology and
e‐Gov
2 Appointed
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Public Trust Sustainability
Economic
Development
2 Appointed
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Transparency
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
2 Appointed Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Economic
Development
Technology and
e‐Gov
2 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
City‐Business
Relations
Economic
Development

306
Population
Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Overall Ranking
#1 #2 #3 #4
2 Appointed Public Trust
Technology and
e‐Gov
Economic
Development
Local Cultural
Intelligence
3 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Economic
Development
Youth Development
3 Elected Public Safety Public Trust
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
3 Elected
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability Civic Oversight
3 Elected Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Public Trust
City‐Business
Relations
3 Elected Transparency
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Sustainability
Economic
Development
3 Elected Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
3 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
3 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Technology and
e‐Gov
3 Appointed
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Public Trust Sustainability
Infrastructure &
Transportation
3 Appointed
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Public Trust Sustainability
Infrastructure &
Transportation
3 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Youth Development
4 Elected Public Safety
Economic
Development
Accountability
City‐Business
Relations
4 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Economic
Development
Sustainability
4 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
City‐Business
Relations
4 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
4 Elected
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Public Trust Youth Development
Infrastructure &
Transportation
4 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Community Services
and the Arts
Youth Development
4 Appointed Public Safety Public Trust Sustainability
Economic
Development
4 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
4 Appointed Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
4 Appointed
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Public Trust
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability
4 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Infrastructure &
Transportation
City‐Business
Relations
5 Elected Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Sustainability

307
Population
Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Overall Ranking
#1 #2 #3 #4
5 Elected Public Trust
Economic
Development
Sustainability
Local Cultural
Intelligence
5 Elected Transparency
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Economic
Development
Youth Development
5 Elected Public Trust Public Safety
Economic
Development
Sustainability
5 Elected Transparency
Economic
Development
Technology and
e‐Gov
Internal
Administration
5 Elected Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Economic
Development
Sustainability
5 Appointed Public Trust Sustainability
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Infrastructure &
Transportation
5 Appointed Public Trust Sustainability Public Safety
Economic
Development
5 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Technology and
e‐Gov
Infrastructure &
Transportation
5 Appointed Public Trust Public Safety
Economic
Development
Technology and
e‐Gov
5 Appointed Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Sustainability
Infrastructure &
Transportation
6 Elected Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Housing Programs
City‐Business
Relations
6 Elected Public Trust
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Youth Development
Internal
Administration
6 Elected Public Trust
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
Local Cultural
Intelligence
6 Elected
Economic
Development
Public Safety
City‐Business
Relations
Public Trust
6 Elected
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Civic Oversight Sustainability
Infrastructure &
Transportation
6 Elected Public Trust
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
6 Elected Transparency Public Safety Sustainability
Economic
Development
6 Elected Transparency
Internal
Administration
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations
6 Elected Public Trust Youth Development Housing Programs
Local Cultural
Intelligence
6 Appointed Public Trust
Internal
Administration
Technology and
e‐Gov
Housing Programs
6 Appointed
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Public Safety Public Trust
City‐Business
Relations
6 Appointed
Internal
Administration
Public Trust
Economic
Development
Youth Development
6 Appointed Public Safety Accountability
City‐Business
Relations
Housing Programs
6 Appointed Public Trust
Collaboration and
Consensus Building
Economic
Development
City‐Business
Relations

308
Population
Quantile
Elected or
Appointed
Overall Ranking
#1 #2 #3 #4
Sesser, Illinois Elected
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Youth Development
Infrastructure &
Transportation
Transparency
Willoughby, Ohio Elected Public Trust Youth Development
Local Cultural
Intelligence
Community Services
and the Arts

Abstract (if available)

Abstract National and state headlines often take center stage in the media, but municipal or “local” government is what people see most. Local government touches everything in one’s community—public safety, infrastructure and transportation, business and economics, quality of life issues, etc. In California, local jurisdictions focus primarily on city and county governments. While laws, rules, and regulations traditionally stipulate how governments may operate, the act of governance is entirely different. Examining the city level specifically, this research endeavor presents a framework for good local governance, which suggests that the local political and public administrative processes maximize the public’s interest. Using a well-designed and in-depth qualitative interviewing technique, which captured the “lived experiences” of 41 elected policymakers (e.g., city council members and members of the board of supervisors [San Francisco]) and 32 chief appointed officials (e.g., city managers) across a uniformly representative sample based upon population of 38 California jurisdictions, an organic framework for effective and resilient local governance emerged. The framework’s four main building blocks and 16 subcomponents consider various levels of uniqueness inherent to the six population quantiles of 80 or 81 cities each used to represent the 482 incorporated jurisdictions in California. For reference and general comparison purposes, one elected policymaker from each of two out-of-state local jurisdictions also participated (one in Illinois and one in Ohio) bringing the total to 75 experts across 40 cities. The detailed analysis found substantial correlation among responses when grouped within the six population quantiles and when ungrouped. Deeper assessment examined similarities and differences among elected policymaker responses versus city manager responses. Included in the findings are summaries of responses and ideas and recommendations on how to leverage the results of this extensive evaluation of local governance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Governing public goods: how representation and political power in local and regional institutions shape inequalities

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Community, empowerment, and the city: sources of capacity in local governance

PDF

The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps

PDF

Simple majority or supermajority: what do California's special tax initiatives mean for local governance?

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

Residential care in Los Angeles: policy and planning for an aging population

PDF

Policy termination: a conceptual framework and application to the local public hospital context

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Satisfaction with local "public goods" and services: the effects of household income and privatization in southern California

PDF

Goal setting and performance in federal agencies

PDF

Where there is discretion, should law enforcement officers at the local level be involved in enforcing federal immigration law? a study for consideration

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

PDF

Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Three essays

PDF

Does organizational culture play a role in aviation safety? A qualitative case study analysis

PDF

The crisis of potable water in Mexico City: institutional factors and water property rights as conditions for creating adequate metropolitan water governance

PDF

Factors affecting city government emergency preparedness

PDF

Challenging migrant worker policies in Korea: settlement and local citizenship

PDF

University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts

Asset Metadata

Creator Falkow, Michael David (author)

Core Title A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 10/26/2020

Defense Date 09/02/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag framework,good governance,governance,local government resilience,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Zerunyan, Frank V. (committee chair), Abbas, Ali E. (committee member), Resh, William G. (committee member)

Creator Email mdfalkow@fullerton.edu,mfalkow@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-385658

Unique identifier UC11666278

Identifier etd-FalkowMich-9066.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-385658 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FalkowMich-9066.pdf

Dmrecord 385658

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Falkow, Michael David

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA