000			01752naa a2200193uu 4500
001			7092520180410
003			OSt
005			20190211163140.0
008			070925s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aALEXANDER, Jennifer _932760
245	1	0	_aAdministrative discretion : _bcan we move beyond cider house rules?
260			_aThousand Oaks, CA : _bSage Publications, _cMarch 2007
520	3		_aThe authors use a novel, The Cider House Rules, as a framework to examine legitimate administrative action when execution of a law will result in harm. Four political values that have informed administrative dissent are reviewed: publicity, utility, democracy, and liberty. The authors identify questions to serve as guidelines for front-line administrators when deciding to exercise discretion in opposition to a political mandate. The questions offer checkpoints for considering whether administrative action in opposition to mandate is ethical. The authors extend the logic of the new public service by arguing that administrators are responsible for protecting liberty because liberty is constitutionally fundamental and particularly at risk in the case of citizens peripheral to political processes. The authors argue that administrative discretion in opposition to mandate requiring secrecy or misrepresentation may be exercised under particular circumstances, for the protection of individual liberty, given its elevated status among the regime values
700	1		_aRICHMOND, Samuel A _932761
773	0	8	_tThe American Review of Public Administration _g37, 1, p. 51-64 _dThousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, March 2007 _xISSN 0275-0740 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20070925 _b2018^b _cTiago
998			_a20070926 _b1542^b _cZailton
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c24613 _d24613
041			_aeng