Question 1 and 2 must be answered on separate pages with separate references. Question 1 Review “Doing the Right Thing” in Chapter 5. Governmental Planning Takes Diverse Forms. A partial list of large-scale governmental planning activities would have to include at least the following:  (1) planning for the conservation and use of natural resources  (2) city planning,  (3) planning for full employment,  (4) planning for personal and family security  (5) planning for agriculture  (6) planning for the improvement of government organization. Provide one example from the case that addresses one of the five planning activities. Explain the lessons you discovered in this case that could create additional planning activities. Question 1b Review “Robin Hood” in Chapter 5. The story stated that the source of revenue (the rich) was dwindling because the rich were avoiding the forest. Robin considered increasing revenue by assessing a fixed transit tax. Recommend a contingency plan to increase revenue that would allow Robin Hood to stay true to his mission. Comment on the use and importance of contingency plans by public administrators. Provide an example to illustrate. Question 2 Using the story about Robin Hood, discuss a cost-benefit and cost-effective analysis of the proposed assessment and contingency plan. Justify your rationale. From the e-Activity, select one of the current events and discuss what method of rational decision making will better serve the public interest(s). Justify your response. E-Activity Go to Governing the States and Localities located at http://www.governing.com . Select News and Topics. Select State or Local. Select and review one article ROBIN HOOD It was early in the spring of the second year of his insurrection against the High Sheriff of Nottingham that Robin Hood took a walk in Sherwood Forest. As he walked, he pondered the progress of the campaign, the disposition of his forces, his opposition's moves, and the options that confronted him. The revolt against the sheriff began as a personal crusade. It erupted out of Robin's own conflict with the sheriff and his administration. Alone, however, Robin could accomplish little. He therefore sought allies, men with personal grievances and a deep sense of justice. Later he took all who came without asking too many questions. Strength, he believed, lay in numbers. The first year was spent in forging the group into a disciplined band—a group united in enmity against the sheriff, willing to live outside the law as long as it took to accomplish their goals. The band was simply organized. Robin ruled supreme, making all important decisions. Specific tasks were delegated to his lieutenants. Will Scarlett was in charge of intelligence and scouting. His main job was to keep tabs on the movements of the sheriff's men. He also collected information on the travel plans of rich merchants and abbots. Little John kept discipline among the men, and he saw to it that ...

1. Question 1 and 2 must be answered on separate pages with
separate references.
Question 1
Review “Doing the Right Thing” in Chapter 5. Governmental
Planning Takes Diverse Forms. A partial list of large-scale
governmental planning activities would have to include at least
the following:
(1) planning for the conservation and use of natural resources
(2) city planning,
(3) planning for full employment,
(4) planning for personal and family security
(5) planning for agriculture
(6) planning for the improvement of government organization.
Provide one example from the case that addresses one of the
five planning activities. Explain the lessons you discovered in
this case that could create additional planning activities.
Question 1b
Review “Robin Hood” in Chapter 5. The story stated that the
source of revenue (the rich) was dwindling because the rich
were avoiding the forest. Robin considered increasing revenue
by assessing a fixed transit tax. Recommend a contingency plan

2. to increase revenue that would allow Robin Hood to stay true to
his mission. Comment on the use and importance of contingency
plans by public administrators. Provide an example to illustrate.
Question 2
Using the story about Robin Hood, discuss a cost-benefit and
cost-effective analysis of the proposed assessment and
contingency plan. Justify your rationale.
From the e-Activity, select one of the current events and discuss
what method of rational decision making will better serve the
public interest(s). Justify your response.
E-Activity
Go to Governing the States and Localities located at
http://www.governing.com
. Select News and Topics. Select State or Local. Select and
review one article
ROBIN HOOD
It was early in the spring of the second year of his insurrection
against the High Sheriff of Nottingham that Robin Hood took a
walk in Sherwood Forest. As he walked, he pondered the
progress of the campaign, the disposition of his forces, his
opposition's moves, and the options that confronted him.
The revolt against the sheriff began as a personal crusade. It
erupted out of Robin's own conflict with the sheriff and his
administration. Alone, however, Robin could accomplish little.

3. He therefore sought allies, men with personal grievances and a
deep sense of justice. Later he took all who came without
asking too many questions. Strength, he believed, lay in
numbers.
The first year was spent in forging the group into a disciplined
band—a group united in enmity against the sheriff, willing to
live outside the law as long as it took to accomplish their goals.
The band was simply organized. Robin ruled supreme, making
all important decisions. Specific tasks were delegated to his
lieutenants. Will Scarlett was in charge of intelligence and
scouting. His main job was to keep tabs on the movements of
the sheriff's men. He also collected information on the travel
plans of rich merchants and abbots. Little John kept discipline
among the men, and he saw to it that their archery was at the
high peak that their profession demanded. Scarlett took care of
the finances, paying shares of the take, bribing officials,
converting loot to cash, and finding suitable hiding places for
surplus gains. Finally, Much the Miller's Son had the difficult
task of provisioning the ever-increasing band.
The increasing size of the band was a source of satisfaction for
Robin, but also a subject of much concern. The fame of his
Merry Men was spreading, and new recruits were pouring in.
Yet the number of men was beginning to exceed the food
capacity of the forest. Game was becoming scarce, and food had
to be transported by cart from outlying villages. The band had
always camped together. But now what had been a small
gathering had become a major encampment that could be
detected miles away. Discipline was also becoming harder to
enforce. “Why?” Robin reflected. “I don't know half the men I
run into these days.”
Although the band was getting larger, their main source of
revenue was in decline. Travelers, especially the richer variety,
began giving the forest a wide berth. This was costly and

4. inconvenient to them, but it was preferable to having all their
goods confiscated by Robin's men. Robin was therefore
considering changing his past policy to one of a fixed transit
tax.
The idea was strongly resisted by his lieutenants who were
proud of the Merry Men's famous motto: “Rob from the rich and
give to the poor.” The poor and the townspeople, they argued,
were their main source of support and information. If they were
antagonized by transit taxes, they would abandon the Merry
Men to the mercy of the sheriff.
Robin wondered how long they could go on keeping to the ways
and methods of their early days. The sheriff was growing
stronger. He had the money, the men, and the facilities. In the
long run he would wear Robin and his men down. Sooner or
later, he would find their weaknesses and methodically destroy
them. Robin felt that he must bring the campaign to a
conclusion. The question was, How could this be achieved?
Robin knew that the chances of killing or capturing the sheriff
were remote. Besides, killing the sheriff might satisfy his
personal thirst for revenge but would not change the basic
problem. It was also unlikely that the sheriff would be removed
from office. He had powerful friends at court. On the other
hand, Robin reflected, if the district was in a perpetual state of
unrest, and the taxes went uncollected, the sheriff would fall out
of favor. But on further thought, Robin reasoned, the sheriff
might shrewdly use the unrest to obtain more reinforcements.
The outcome depended on the mood of the regent Prince John.
The Prince was known as vicious, volatile, and unpredictable.
He was obsessed by his unpopularity among the people, who
wanted the imprisoned King Richard back. He also lived in
constant fear of the barons who were growing daily more hostile
to his power. Several of these barons had set out to collect the
ransom that would release King Richard the Lionheart from his

5. jail in Austria. Robin had been discreetly asked to join, in
return for future amnesty. It was a dangerous proposition.
Provincial banditry was one thing, court intrigue another. Prince
John was known for his vindictiveness. If the gamble failed he
would personally see to it that all involved were crushed.
The sound of the supper horn startled Robin from his thoughts.
There was the smell of roasting venison in the air. Nothing had
been resolved or settled. Robin headed for camp promising
himself that he would give these problems first priority after
tomorrow's operation.
What are Robin's key problems? How are they related to each
other? How did they emerge? What should Robin do in the short
term and in the longer term?
DOING THE RIGHT THING
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
does not become a monster.
Frederick Nietzsche
Leon Panetta was a surprise choice to lead the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), since his reputation rested primarily
on his mastery of domestic policy—a mastery acquired as
chairman of the House Budget Committee, as President
Clinton's budget director, and later as his chief of staff.
Although some colleagues say that Panetta can be “principled to
the point of rigidity,” it was more his reputation for rectitude
and integrity than as his grasp of the intricacies of national
security issues that got him the CIA job.
In May 2009, Panetta found himself preoccupied not with
foreign enemies but with domestic critics, both conservative and

6. liberal. From the right, former Vice President Dick Cheney
accused the Barack Obama administration of “making the
American people less safe” by banning the enhanced CIA
interrogation of terrorism suspects that had been sanctioned by
the George W. Bush administration. From the left, human rights
activists and some Democratic members of Congress called for
the establishment of some sort of inquiry—a special prosecutor,
a congressional investigation, a truth commission—to determine
whether the Bush administration lawyers who had argued that
waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques could be
employed in the aftermath of 9/11 should be prosecuted. These
liberal groups were especially appalled that Panetta had advised
Obama against such an inquiry.
As the director of the CIA, Panetta knew this was a sensitive
issue for his agency. Critics believe that the agency had lost its
moral bearings after 9/11. In 2007, when a confidential Red
Cross report became public, no doubt remained that the agency
had subjected terror suspects to prolonged physical and
psychological cruelty. Officers shackled prisoners for weeks in
contorted positions; chained them to the ceiling, wearing only
diapers; exploited their phobias; and propelled them headfirst
into walls. At least three prisoners died.
There was more bad news for the agency when President Obama
released disturbing classified government documents describing
how one prisoner was waterboarded 183 times in a month. For
more than a century, the United States had prosecuted
waterboarding as a serious crime, and a 10-year prison sentence
was issued as recently as 1983. Indeed, the memos authorizing
interrogators to torment prisoners clashed so glaringly with
international and U.S. law that some of them were later
withdrawn by lawyers in Bush's own Justice Department.
Torture itself is a felony, sometimes even treated as a capital
crime. The Convention Against Torture, which America ratified
in 1994, requires a government to prosecute all acts of torture;

7. failure to do so is considered a breach of international law.
Although Panetta might oppose an inquiry, that did not mean he
took torture lightly. One of his first acts as director was to ask
the CIA's inspector general to ensure that there was no one on
the payroll who should be prosecuted for torture or related
crimes. The inspector general assured him that no officer still at
the agency had engaged in any action that went beyond the legal
boundaries as they were understood during the Bush years.
Panetta's position was therefore consistent with that of
President Obama, who had promised immunity from prosecution
to any CIA officer who relied on the advice of legal counsel
during the Bush years. For the longer term, Panetta was trying
to set up a state-of-the-art interrogation unit, staffed by some of
the best CIA, FBI, and military officers in the country and
drawing on the advice of social scientists, linguists, and other
scholars.
Panetta wondered if he had done enough. Should he resist or
welcome an investigation of the CIA by the Attorney General
that might lead to prosecution? Or should he resist or welcome
the creation of an independent “truth commission” that could
grant immunity to witnesses? As he pondered the pros and cons
of some sort of inquiry, it became increasingly apparent how
unappetizing his choices were.
Here are some of the arguments
against any
investigation:
If Panetta did not argue against investigation, he would not be
seen within the agency as someone people want to
follow.
Prosecution would be unfair to CIA officers who thought they

8. were abiding by the law. People shouldn't be punished
for doing what they took to be their duty.
An investigation might look vindictive, as if the Obama
administration was trying to go after Cheney and Bush. Such
a perception could have a serious political downside,
namely, the risk of losing support from independents.
Prosecution of officials would have a chilling effect on future
U.S. government officials. Few would be brave or foolhardy
enough to put forward daring proposals that one day could
be judged illegal. Putting things down in writing is a useful
intellectual exercise and central to good decision making.
With the threat of prosecution, serious memos on
controversial matters would increasingly become the
exception rather than the rule. Bottom line: U.S. national
security would be weakened.
Investigation and prosecution would take time and focus away
from what the CIA, the country, and its elected and
appointed representatives thought important. Investigations
and trials would constitute an enormous distraction at a time
when the United States faced a daunting array of
international problems.
Investigation would undoubtedly result in the release of more
memos and photos highly unflattering to America's image
abroad. Such releases could spark an anti-American backlash
among allies and provide a superb recruiting tool for terrorist
organizations.
It is impossible to specify clearly a firm chain of causation.
Certainly, a series of actions at the highest levels of
government set the conditions for and allowed abuse and
torture, but there is no proof that higher policymakers
intended severe abuses to occur. And what about top

9. officials who knew about the interrogation program but
had no operational control over it? As one former CIA
official said, “You can't throw out the entire agency.”
Advocates
for
investigation make the following points:
Failure to investigate leaves the impression that the Obama
administration is trying to cover up something.
The U.S. citizenry needs a full accounting, especially as it
relates to the health professionals. Released Justice
Department memos contain numerous references to CIA
medical personnel participating in coercive interrogation
sessions. Were they the designers, the legitimizers, and the
implementers—or something else? Their participation is
possibly one of the biggest medical ethics scandals in U.S.
history.
The argument that CIA officials thought they were doing
their duty because of legal cover provided by the
Department of Justice will not stand. Many times courageous
individuals objected and walked away from policies that led
to abuse and torture. As one FBI assistant director told one
special agent who had objected to the enhanced techniques, “We
don't do that.” That agent was then pulled out of the
interrogation by the FBI director Robert Mueller. At the
Department of Defense, the
Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector
Operations
explicitly prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and
degrading treatment in specific terms (no waterboarding, for
example).

10. Some legal scholars think it would be hard not to do something.
No criminal charges have ever been brought against any CIA
officer involved in the torture program despite the fact that
(as noted earlier) three prisoners interrogated by agency
personnel died as the result of this treatment. Yet the only
Americans who had been prosecuted and sentenced to
imprisonment were 10 low-ranking servicepersons—those who
took and appeared in the Abu Ghraib photographs.
Former Vice President Cheney has said the United States must
torture, because it's effective. That is, at best, an illogical
argument: A crime is not a crime just because it works.
After all, terrorism can be quite effective. The argument is not
only illogical but also fallacious. According to interrogation
experts in the FBI and the U.S. Army, people will say anything
to stop their torture.
The fact that the independent commission would be politically
distracting isn't a good argument for resisting it. Jeffrey
Rosen writes: “The Bush torture policies are the most
serious violation of American values since World War II
internment of Japanese-Americans. A closed Senate
intelligence committee investigation would be inconsistent with
the transparency Obama demanded when he release the
memos in the first place. At this point, only a full truth
commission-style investigation can allow the Bush lawyers to
make clear that they didn't conspire to break the law,
while focusing public opprobrium on the real architects and
abettors of torture policies: namely, the policymakers …. An
independent commission would indeed be politically
embarrassing… but at least it would provide the
accountability that the nation deserves.”