1

Unit #4c: Institutions—Bureaucracy AP US Government & Politics Mr. Coia Name: ___________________________Date:_____________________ Period: ________ Thurs 2/24 • Test on the Presidency and Key

Legislation HW: AG 306-316 Mon 2/28 • Reading Quiz • What is a bureaucracy? • The Dam Letter: Read&Mark • Lecture/Discussion topic: Structure of

the American Bureaucracy • Selecting topic for Teaching

Bureaucracy assignment HW: AG 317-325; Teaching Bureaucracy assignment Wed 3/2 • Reading Quiz • Lecture/Discussion topic: Growth of

the Bureaucracy; Influences of Bureaucratic Behavior

• IC: Visit government sites (expectmore.gov)

HW: AG 325-332 (end of chapter 9); Teaching Bureaucracy assignment Fri 3/4 • Reading Quiz • IC: Work on Teaching Bureaucracy

lesson HW: Teaching Bureaucracy assignment

Tues 3/8 • Teaching Bureaucracy presentations • Class voting on best bureaucracy • Students present their own and take

notes on others’ presentations

Thurs 3/10 • Unit Test on bureaucracy • (includes some on Congress and

Presidency) • Final comments on bureaucracy Next Week: Federal Courts unit begins (chapter 10). It’s a long one, so you may want to get ahead on reading/notetaking

2

The Dam Letter

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter. SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2006< /st1:date>. ! Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David L. Price District Representative and Water Management Division.

3

Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. Price, Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout Run, Pennsylvania. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood 'debris' dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials 'debris.' I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.) I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the stream 'restored' to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers)

4

and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2006? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not careful where they dump! Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. THANK YOU, RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

Your Response:

What does this letter show about bureaucracy in our country?

5

Teaching Bureaucracy – 25 points Directions: Students will be divided into eight groups. Each group will assigned one of the topics below. Members of the group will work together to create visuals and/or handouts and will be prepared to “teach” the information to other students in the class. You will be given some in-class time to research your question using your textbook. However, you will also need to search the Internet for information outside of class. We will have one day in the computer lab to help you get started and one day in class to prepare your presentations with your group. On the day of the activity, Each team will be assigned space to physically create, decorate your own piece of the class “bureaucracy.” You will post your information, and then teach it to your classmates as they rotate through. We will run two rounds, so that you have the opportunity both to be the “bureaucrat” as you present your information in 3 minutes to each group, and as a client of each bureaucracy as you receive information from the other groups. Group 1: Describe the spoils system, and explain how it changed to the system of many rules that bureaucrats must follow today. Include the Pendleton Act and the Office of Personnel Management in your discussion. Group 2: Identify and describe the growth of the federal bureaucracy over time and efforts to control/reduce its size and growth rate. Group 3: Identify and describe ways in which the bureaucracy is criticized, including red tape, conflict, duplication, unchecked growth, waste, and lack of accountability. Group 4: Describe the background, primary functions, duties/jurisdictions, and strengths/weakness of the new Department of Homeland Security. Group 5: Identify the causes, effects and rules of the Hatch Act. Group 6: Discuss the different types of government agencies (four types). Provide specific examples. Group 7: Discuss how each of the different branches of government have some oversight responsibilities over the bureaucracies. Provide specific examples. Group 8: Discuss the “iron triangle” relationship and explain how this can be applied to both defense and agriculture. Must include the concept of the “revolving door.” Grading: Each team will be assessed and given an overall grade in the following areas: OVERALL QUALITY & EFFECTIVENESS (knowledge, handouts, posters, etc.) BUREAUCRATIC EFFICIENCY (organization of space, smoothness or presentation) BUREAUCRATIC AUTHENTICITY (Jr. Bureaucrats?) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (User friendly, comfortable, props, etc.) Class Feedback: The class will vote for the winner in the following category: Customer Satisfaction Efficiency – served in timely fashion; organized well Effectiveness – comprehensive information about the topic

6

02468

101214

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999Mill

ions

of E

mpl

oyee

s

Year

Federal, State, and Local Government Employees

Local Employees

State Employees

Federal Employees

2,400,0002,500,0002,600,0002,700,0002,800,0002,900,0003,000,0003,100,0003,200,0003,300,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Num

ber o

f Fed

eral

Civ

ilian

Em

ploy

ees

Year

Federal Government Civilian Employment

7

01020304050607080

Perc

enta

ge

Federal Civilian Employees, 2004