The Maisenbacher House: The Springfield Clinic Case

Introduction

The city of Springfield is known for its historical pertinence to the State. This small city houses significant sites and infrastructure in the Lincoln era. One of such structures is the Maisenbacher house which was believed to be built with $650 borrowed from Abraham Lincoln. However, in 2008, the Maisenbacher house was part of one of many sites to be demolished by the Springfield Clinic due to infrastructural need and expansion of the city. A parking lot was to be built on its grounds. This, however, created a conflict involving the Springfield City Council, Springfield Clinic, private developers, nonprofit groups and concerned individual. The case highlights the relationship between government and nonprofit groups, the influence

Allocation of fiscal budget are done on the basis of the need of the city, thus in the case, being an abrupt problem, the Springfield council did not have enough money to finance the moving of the Maisenbacher house because it was not anticipated that such a need would arise. Developmental project of the city are financed by tax payers. According to (Rainey p79), “public organizations are characterized by an absence of economic markets for outputs and a reliance on governmental appropriation for financial resources”. And in this case, spending a huge amount of money that much on moving the house means more tax increment on the citizens. Thus, the question is it worth spending an appropriation of over $2 million on an old historical house? Or does the need to save the house represent the interest/opinion of all? However, not all individuals supported the moving of the house. Critics disapproved of saving the house when the cost became evident citing other needs that are much more important considering it was a recession period and it was becoming difficult for people to meet their basic needs. According to Maslow, people’s motivation are driven by needs. This hierarchy starts from physiological needs to self-actualization needs. Needs in the lowest category dominate a person’s motives until they are sufficiently fulfilled (Rainey,

The main aim of public service is to deliver services that are of need to its people. How fast a public manager can address its people’s problem and concerns indicates its effectiveness. Responsiveness of the manager develops trust between him, the government, and the people. According to (Rainey, p106) bureaucratic responsiveness implies two things; responsiveness to the people’s wishes or responsiveness to the interest of the government.

Accountability and Transparency

Accountable and transparent to the public it is serving is a key feature of a public manager. These two concepts greatly measures the effectiveness of government. Being accountable simply implies being answerable to your actions as a public servant. Transparent on the other hand clearly implies the act of being open to the people. Organizations should abide by law and directives issued by government. This provides accounts of their compliance (Rainey, p 105). An effective government is one that is both accountable and transparent. “Public agencies receive request for helpful, reasonable, and flexible responses to the needs of client, their activities are public business, and citizens and the media demand relative openness to scrutiny” (Rainey,