I think it's time for states, cities and other municipal governments to have their public risk managers elected by popular vote, rather than appointed by those who might see the post as something of a non-entity, politically speaking.
After all, we elect people to all kinds of offices, from attorneys general to insurance commissioners. Why not have a person responsible for the public welfare directly accountable to the people they serve?
I realize that to make the post of public risk manager an elected position could politicize the job. But that might not be a bad thing, since one of the problems with public risk management is that it does not always have a high profile within local government.
Indeed, the Public Risk Management Association's new president–Laura Peterson, state risk manager for Nebraska–told NU in an exclusive interview with our own Caroline McDonald last month that to be effective, public risk managers must make their case directly to those with the authority to make things happen.
Such power brokers differ from one locale to another–it could be the governor, or the legislature's appropriations staff, or others within the bureaucratic maze. (For the full story, go to http://bit.ly/b3FZc6.)
The point is Ms. Peterson says risk managers need a seat at the "decision-making table" to do their jobs most effectively.
Having a popular mandate to enhance safety for public-sector workers and the local citizens they serve could give risk managers all the political capital they need to become power brokers in their own right. It certainly would raise the position's profile, and perhaps guarantee more press coverage–for better or worse.
In many states we elect judges, who have the power to send people to jail. Wouldn't it be nice to elect the people who have the power to protect us? These folks are responsible for the safety of our public infrastructure. They see to it that public-sector employees are working in a safe environment, thus shielding taxpayers from soaring workers' compensation costs and lawsuits.
Those who do a good job controlling risks and the costs associated with them, who promote safety and prevent worst-case scenarios, would be rewarded with reelection. Those who don't get the job done would be voted out, replaced by someone who knows their position depends on how well they mitigate the potential for loss.
Some might no doubt see the risk manager post as a stepping stone to higher office, just as some elected insurance commissioners have behaved. But so what? Again, it's an added incentive to do a great job–to have a solid record on which to run.
Of course, campaign financing could be a problem, as it always is for elected positions. I can see insurance companies and brokers (as well as the public-sector unions) lining up to contribute to a risk manager candidate's campaign fund, thereby setting up potential conflicts of interest and charges of corruption down the line. A publicly-financed campaign would therefore be preferable.
On the other hand, carriers and brokers would also have to deal with public-sector buyers who have their own independent power base–who serve at the pleasure of the electorate, not the whim of a governor.
That could garner more respect and influence for the public risk manager position, not only from fellow elected officials but from their vendors as well.
What do you folks think?
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.