This study examines accountability and responsibility as they apply to local government managers in the United States. The Friedrich-Finer debate defined contrasting views of accountability and responsibility, with Finer advancing elected officials and Friendrich advancing the profession and public sentiment for establishing responsibility and accountability for nonelected officials. More recent scholars also include the courts, media, and more precise definitions of public sentiment in addition to those identified earlier by Friendrich and Finer. This study surveyed local government managers, asking them to indicate the importance of these sources of accountability as they define their responsabilities, as they consider new policy options, and as they respond to rountine matters, related to their jobs. The 488 respondents assigned more importance to their professions than to other sources when they define their responsibilites, but they rated the governing body more important than others when they consider new policy options or when they respond to routine matters. They assessed court cases and the media last. The study concludes that both Friedrich and Finer provide too narrow a definition of accountability and responsibility. The accountability-responsibility relationship among elected officials, public administrators and the public occurs in multiple and complex ways. The complexity of this relationship is marked by the need for adminstrators to be simultaneously empowered (by the definiton of their responsibility, both objectively and subjectively) and constrained (through mechanisms of accountability, which then feed into definitions of responsibility). These contraditory, even paradoxical, concepts make it easy for scholars to divide by emphasizing one or the other (as did Friedrich and Finer) rather than to examine how they work together simultaneously to achieve responsiveness from administrative officials in a democractic polity.\