Recent orders
Decision Making
Decision Making
As a judge with a reputable name in the US to warrant consideration as a future candidate into the Supreme Court, decision-making procedures are clearly defined by the constitution as well as by court precedents on similar decisions. In line with the premise that constitution is the supreme law and any other law is rendered invalid to the extent of its inconsistence with the constitution, the work of a judge is cut out. For judicial rulings sought by the public where they are not clearly spelt out in the constitution, a judge is free to make rulings setting precedents that may not bind the courts. In view of the flexibility of a judge to rely on judicial precedents, it follows that the freedom to make reliance on past rulings is reserved to the judge. Based on the above facts, it is correct to state that all the rulings delivered as highlighted below pass the test of legal definitions.
In the case of farmers from a different state being barred from selling their wares in Oklahoma, it is against the constitution to exclude someone on a state-related reason. The inconsistence with the constitution renders the law enforced in Oklahoma null and void. In the second case, Oklahoma and Texas are inconsistent with the constitution since enforcement of the order that they are requesting does not serve the best interests of the public as protected by the constitution and the Statute assented to by the president. In the case of Julie Abrams, seeking to compel the Utah state to allow her to operate by circumventing around the laid out state laws is inconsistent with state laws. The election date case in Colorado is consistent with the constitution as it complies with the provisions of the constitution. In the case of Texas having a commemorative coin against the provision of the constitution regarding legal tender, it is inconsistent with the law therefore void to the extent of that inconsistence.
In view of the basic compliance with the constitutional provisions, all the rulings were correct. There were no major contestations on the application of contentious judicial interpretation such as in judicial precedents. Where the constitution is expressly clear on the position of a legal impasse, there are no discussions within the circumstances of the presenting legal challenge other than to implement the constitutional provisions. Apparently, I achieved the goal of a judicial officer under the oath to protect the constitution of the US. To this end, public opinion and ratings leading to proposals as a federal judge does not have an impact on the independence of my judgment. This would affect my duty to discharge my judgment as impartially as possible and without bias originating from conflict of interest.
I have learnt that the decision making process in certain independent positions may face obstacles such as conflict of interest. However, following the laid out procedures is always important in upholding professional values and protecting and national interests. In certain instances, independent judgment may call for extra strength of mind and character by rising above conflicting positions. Understanding the rules and guidelines for a specific job is important in the delivery of expected input, which calls for deliberation on all the available options and choosing for the most appropriate one. As an illustration, it would be embarrassing for a judge of a junior court to continuously make decisions that are contested in an appellate court and having all decisions reversed. This can be avoided by making accurate estimation that can be adopted by appellate court judges.
Decision Making Models
Decision Making Models
All people need to make decisions from time to time. Given the limited time in formulating policies and addressing problems, people have to enjoy a particular degree of discretion and good judgment in planning, revising and implementing their own course of action. That is, they must engage in decision-making (Giannakos, 2004; Verma, 2009). Over the years, scholars have come up with different decision-making models to account for the course of action taken.
The various decision making models which have been put forwards include, the rational models, the intuitive models, the rational-iterative models and the 5, 6, 7 as well as the 9 step decision models among others.
Rational decision-making model
This model allows decision-makers to make the best decisions and judgments and subsequently realize maximum efficiency and competency out of inadequate time and resources as well as knowledge in generating decisions. This model presumes that there exists only one most ideal and best outcome, thus at times it is referred to as the optimizing decision-making model. The model presumes that it is practicable to take into account every option available to a problem and also be knowledgeable of the future consequences of each.
Presented with the critical need to select the best alternative solution to a significant challenge, decision makers are confronted with the need to make the best possible decision. If that decision can maximize an individual’s rewards and meet his goals and objectives, there is an incentive to seek out information that will enlighten the decision and thereafter execute it. (Swoboda & Georgalu, 2008, p. 77)
It comprises of a structured four step sequence, these steps being; the identification of the problem, the generation of alternative solutions, the selection of a solution and finally the implementation and evaluation of the solution
One of the disadvantages that are associated with this model is that they require a great deal of time and a vast deal of information (Verma, 2009, p. 225). Other impediments are; the impossibility of distinguishing facts from values and of analytically separating ends from means, the improbability of obtaining consensus among decision makers on predetermined goals, pressure of time to make a decision when it is needed and the ability of decision makers to handle only a partial amount of information at any particular time. Other disadvantages associated with the rational approach include, the difficulty of giving one’s undivided attention to a single problem or decision, the cost of information acquisition, failure to secure all possible data because of time constraints, excessive costs or oversight and the inability to predict all the consequences of a given option among others (Milakovich & Gordon, 2008, pp. 209-211)
7step decision making model
This model was conceived and meant for those individuals who sought after a decision-making model which would assist them in making a decision about which career path to take or in deciding what action to take in regards to a job offer. Therefore, several steps are designed to achieve this.
The 7steps involved are; identification of the decision to be made, knowing your strengths, weaknesses, skills, values and interests, identifying your options, gathering information, facts and data about each alternative, evaluating the options that are likely to solve the problem, selecting the best option and the seventh step being to develop a plan of action and implementing it.
This model has the disadvantage of being extremely cumbersome, and information overload may actually inhibit the decision-making, that is, it is tedious especially when trying to figure out which information is relevant and which is not. Moreover, this model is not practical as it does not demonstrate how human beings naturally make decisions.
Other lesser known models include,
The Simon’s Normative Model. This model is founded on the assertion that the decision-making process is not rational. Herein, decision making is characterized by, limited information processing, excessive use of rules of thumb and, or shortcuts and satisficing
The 9 step decision-making model was proposed by David Welsh in his book ‘Decisions, Decisions’. This model allows the individual to consistently aim to maximize his pleasure and will be beneficial in the long run than in making decisions in any other way.
The intuitive decision-making models, herein decisions are considered to be lucky guesses, unlikely coincidences or a sort of hocus-pocus.
Reference
Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2008). Public Administration in America (10, illustrated
ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Swoboda, D., & Georgalu, S. (2008). Managing Nonprofit Financial and Fiscal Operations.
Management Concepts.
VERMA, D. (2009). Decision Making Style: Social and Creative Dimensions. Global
India Publications.
Decision making is fundamental
Midterm
Name
Institution affiliation
Date
Introduction
Decision making is fundamental in order to have successful public administration. However, there could be an uphill task to choose the most suitable model for policy choices. Decision making is important and one must be ready to face consequences of decision made
Root decision making has following advantage and disadvantages. Advantage is that there is increased accuracy and efficiency of decision making because of comphrensive analysis of decision and considers also appropriateness of decision. Disadvantages include ignorance of inability to take action as result of comphrensive analysis. It does not also favor community participation hence has centralized bias. Root decision making is not also adapted to sufficiency of information and costliness analysis.
Branch decision making has the following advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include it encourages democratic politics and also avoids colossal mistake which happen due to inappropriate decision making. Interest of both parties involved is catered for due to comprehensive analysis. It is elastic and can accommodate changes before implementation. Disadvantages include lack of innovativeness in finding suitable decision to problems. It may also underestimate policies which have not been proposed by successive chain policies.
There are major differences between root and branch decision making. Firstly, in root decision making, there is clarification of objectives prior to marginal evaluation and empirical analysis. The end refers to goals and objectives to be pursued and not a particular outcome.it is rational and aims at maximizing value of decision makers while branch decision making there is close intertwining of marginal evaluation and empirical analysis rather than being distinct as it is in root decision making (Henry, 45).Secondly, in root decision making, there is thorough analyzing comprehensively policies with relevant factor taken into account. While branch decision making depicts limited analysis(Stillman, 78).Branch decision making tends to ignore alternative possible and significant potential outcomes.Thirdly,Root decision making uses mean end analysis that entails isolation which is opposite to branch decision making where there is no isolation.
Hurricane Katarina disaster case was one of the most tragic encounter in USA history. Failure of government in managing disasters and poor response from Katarina led to this tragic occurrence. This was as result of poor decision making.
There were basic coordination problem. This caused disagreements on what is to be done at specific time and who is to do it. This led to delay in disaster management, recovery bodies and attending to those affected. For example FEMA tried to push for government to take control but the officials and locals were overwhelmed and disagreed accusing FEMA of slowness to act accordingly.(House report,2006:75).Although management literature suggest that large disaster are difficult to manage, the government should have been able to take full control of situation.
Unresponsiveness to early warnings. The disaster that happened cannot be classified as a surprise as scientists had already warned about that yet no action was taken. The consequences of major Hurricane had been long anticipated especially in New Orleans and there were fears of collapse of coastal city because it was built below sea level. But concerns about such danger were not met with required way of curbing them. It took 5 years for FEMA to file report of Hurricane hitting New Orleans which is extremely long time. Scientists warned people adequately consequentially convincing Governors of Mississippi and Louisiana to issue states of emergency three days before disaster. However some decided to stay because of previous false alarm and others due to lack of transport. Lack of urgency from federal government eventually led to disaster happening.
Failure of Government to understand system nature of risk led to delay. There unprecedented demand for services e.g medical attention, search for survivors, evacuation and setting temporary shelter proved impossible to cover fully. Reduction of response and communication due to scope of disaster made transportation of food difficult due to flooded roads. Many rescue and police vehicles were flooded and rendered unusable. Wireless phones were also affected and emergency calls were difficult
Problem of dealing with dispersed responsibilities. There was lack of clearly authority to guide through disaster in major organs of state. Federal responders waited for so long for certain Aid from the government. Lack of clear directing authority led to freelance hence coordination problem.
Organizational capacity. The size of disaster was so huge for ant network to control. However failure in deployment of personnel, not taking sufficient measures to deploy communication gadgets, not prestaging enough commodities and failure to unite and form joint office led to management of disaster so hard.FEMA for example had been run by political appointee with limited experience in natural disaster management.Furthmore under President bush administration FEMA had lost key functions political influence and resources. All this factors contributed to failure of Katrina
Conclusion
Natural Disasters can cause a lot of harm and we cannot be able to control them fully, however we can take anticipatory measures in order to curb with this menace. Many Lessons emerge from Katrina we must covert the failures into successes of the future. Taking responsibility, assigning roles, faster responsiveness of emergence lines are example ways to stir forward.REFERENCES
Stillman, R. J. (2005). Public administration: Concepts and cases. Boston [u.a.: Houghton Mifflin.
Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs. New York: Pearson Education Canada, 2009.
Milakovich, Michael and George Gordon. Public Administration in America. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012.
Stillman, Richard. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.