In 600 words and 3 scholarly references, explain the following:
1) How should the community and its leaders have planned well ahead of time to prevent Katrina's devastation?
2) What are 3 essential administrative actions that were necessary?
3) Who are the 3 leaders that should have been responsible for making such decisions and then seeing that they were followed through?
4) Explain why is it that who gets involved in the decision process (and who gets left out) makes such a critical difference in the kind and quality of decisions that are made in government?
5) What are central implications can you draw from this case study that may apply to practicing public administrators, particularly in regards to how they ought to go about their day-to-day roles in making appropriate choices to promote the public interest?
Hide this helps-
The community and its leaders should have planned ahead of time to prevent Katrina's devastation by upgrading the levees and launching a coastal restoration plan (Grunwald & Glasser, 2005). While the likelihood of a hurricane was high, there was a general reluctance to take action. Locally, officials resisted proposals to help protect the area from storms to avoid higher taxation and keep the city's budget in line. Just three years before the disaster, special coverage by New Orleans's main newspaper, The Times-Picayune, identified weaknesses in the levees (LaFrance, 2015). Community members did not push their leaders to take action, however. There was a general understanding that the city would not withstand a worst-case scenario, yet most felt this type of event would be unlikely to occur during their lifetime (Grunwald & Glasser, 2005). Congress members from Louisiana failed to prioritize hurricane protection projects when appropriating funds (Grunwald & Glasser, 2005). Tauzin, a Louisiana congressman, sponsored measures to help landowners desecrate the wetlands; a practice that he was told would weaken the land's natural ability to protect itself. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed in many ways. A study found that "the main fault in the failure of the flood walls along the city's principal drainage ...
This detailed solution discusses how the city could have planned for Hurricane Katrina, the essential administrative actions that were necessary, and the three leaders responsible for making decisions. It also explains why it is important who gets involved in the decision process (and who gets left out) in government decisions, and the central implications that can be drawn from the case study (by Grunwald & Glasser, 2005) that may apply to practicing public administrators in promoting public interest. Includes APA formatted references.