Governments have major impacts on their constituents.

One of the stereotypical concerns of public relations practitioners is insuring that their stories make the news. Indeed, some public relations people -- at least those specializing in publicity -- are driven by a need to get their employer or clients' name and story reported by the news media. They often judge their success by the number of story placements they complete or by the total column-inches or seconds of air-time devoted to telling their client's stories.

These public relations practitioners often use the phrase "making the news" to imply that media decisions about running stories are influenced by the public relations people's creativity, persuasive efforts, and personal contacts which generate interest in stories that would otherwise go unreported.

But, when it comes to government, Iowa Human Services Commissioner Michael V. Reagen once observed, "We don't have to make news. We are news!"

The decisions that government makes -- e.g., to raise or lower taxes, to set more stringent clean air standards for automobiles, to change the income requirements for receiving food stamps, to lower speed limits in urban areas, to re-zone a residential area to permit commercial usage, or to send troops to invade a foreign nation -- directly and powerfully impact people within its jurisdiction. Governments affect virtually every aspect of our lives and, because of that, the media are eager to report government decisions and actions. They don't need to be persuaded to do so by government public relations people.

The challenge for government communicators isn't getting stories in the news, it's getting them reported clearly, fully, and accurately so citizens know exactly how and when they're going to be affected by government.

Government communicators are a vital link between the people and the government, and they can and do make life-changing differences in people's lives. Millions of needy people have learned they were eligible for food stamps or Title XIX medical care by reading government produced and distributed brochures. Thousands of victims have been saved from abuse or worse because government-produced public service announcements alerted them to child abuse or spouse abuse hotlines and encouraged them to call. And thousands of others have stopped using unsafe products because of news releases or press conferences sponsored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Food and Drug Administration.

Of course, not all government communication is so meaningful or so dramatic. A lot of it is dull, boring, and routine, but almost all of it directly affects the lives of citizens.

Government employees are accountable to many bosses.

Titles vary a bit from state to state, city to city, and even agency to agency, but a typical government communicator works in an organizational unit called a bureau or an office and reports to a supervisor with the rank or title of bureau chief. A bureau is usually part of a division which in turn is part of an agency or department. Correspondingly, bureau chiefs usually report to a deputy division director or directly to a division director who in turn reports to a commissioner, cabinet secretary, or department head. In municipal governments, department heads report to the mayor or city manager. In state government they report to the governor, and in the federal government they report to a cabinet-level secretary or directly to the President.

This part of the hierarchy of reporting relationships for a government communicator isn't much different than it is for a public relations person in a large corporation. The employee in a corporation is accountable upwards to his/her boss, to that boss' boss, and so on up to the president or owner of the business. A public relations person for Xerox, for instance, may have to personally explain a major public relations screw-up to the president of Xerox. But that's where it stops.

The public relations person for Xerox isn't in any way accountable to the president of General Motors, and the the personnel department of Procter & Gamble doesn't have anything to say about the work rules and working conditions public relations people have to contend with at Xerox.

In government there is inter-agency accountability and, in some instances, intervention in the internal workings of other agencies.

• A department of transportation, for instance, can have the final say about which people in all agencies get to use which official vehicles.

• A city telecommunications department can dictate what radio and telephone equipment is used by everyone in city government.

• And, a purchasing department can specify acceptable and unacceptable vendors for every product any agency of government wants to purchase.

A state government communicator who wants to have a brochure printed, for instance, may have to have it done in the print shop run by inmates at the state prison instead of by a local printer, or a city government communicator who wants to produce a videotape may be required to do business with a production house located within the city even though a better product and lower price could be obtained in a nearby suburb.

The vast majority of government employees in the United States are subject to work rules established by the civil service or merit service commission, a completely separate government department than the one for whom they work.

Originally, civil service systems were meant to reduce corruption and bring greater stability to the jobs of non-elected government employees. They established non-partisan boards or commissions to screen all applicants and hire government employees in order to cut down on the number of jobs that were awarded through political patronage, to ensure that only the most qualified people were hired, and to protect those who had been hired from being arbitrarily fired each time a new official or a different political party came to power. They've done an admirable job of that and, in the process, have set virtually all workplace rules for the governments they serve. That means such things as working hours, break times, over-time authorization, and vacation scheduling, as well as hiring approval and disciplinary actions are ultimately controlled not by the employees' immediate supervisors, not even by their own agency, but by an outside agency.

A government communicator who wants to hold a special event outside of regular work hours or away from the office --e.g., a public information officer for a county fish and game department who wants to set up a booth to pass out information at a weekend county fair -- can't simply convince his/her immediate boss of the value of the idea, he/she would very likely also have to get civil service approval for any government employees to count this activity as part of their work and be paid for it. And, any employee who has a complaint about the way the boss has treated her/him, doesn't just go talk to the boss' boss. He/she files a grievance with the civil service commission.

Furthermore, because American government is based on a system of checks and balances, the legislative and judicial branches of government can look into and intervene in the operations of the executive branch. Judicial intervention is rare unless someone sues the government, but legislative intervention --at least, legislative oversight-- is common.

Many government communicators have had legislative budget committees cut funding for special events they were planning, order them to reduce the number of news releases they issue, or mandate public service announcements about topics of interest to legislators. Special legislative committees and subcommittees ranging from the House Committee on the Aging and Elderly to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the joint committee on child welfare routinely intervene in agency activities. And, beyond these official and collective activities, individual legislators are notorious for poking into any and all aspects of government in response to their constituents' complaints or requests for assistance.

In addition, many governments have an ombudsperson authorized to intervene anywhere in the government in response to citizen or employee complaints, questions, or requests for help.

And, the mass media do much the same thing as self-appointed watchdogs of government. They are constantly alert for government wrong-doing or questionable activities that can be pointed out to the public and to other officials who will demand a full accounting.

Working in government is like being in a fish bowl.

The extensive accountability alone could give government employees the feeling everyone was looking over their shoulders. But, if they ever had any doubts, the so-called sunshine laws passed during the 1960s and `70s would have put them to rest. The combination of laws that give citizens access to government records and documents and those that require that all policy-making decisions be done in open, public meetings have opened all levels to government to intense public scrutiny.

For government communicators, open records laws legally reduce their opportunity to say "no comment" to questions and virtually eliminate their ability to refuse to release information that is requested by the media or the public.

• Unless the information is specifically exempted from release by the applicable open records law or confidentiality statute, it must be released. If it's not, the person who refuses to release it is subject to criminal prosecution.

• When it comes to open meetings laws, the persons conducting a non-public meeting are held legally accountable, but from a practical standpoint it's the government communicators who are responsible for notifying the media and the public about such meetings. This may involve preparing and disseminating media alerts, posting agendas, and being available to answer follow-up questions and provide additional information.

When the legal mandates, the broad and multi-tiered accountability, and the general philosophy of democracy are taken together, it's no exaggeration to say that government communicators must be constantly prepared to explain their own actions and those of their agency to anyone asks about them. Legally, they cannot not respond. And, it is only at their personal and professional peril that they say "no comment." Like it or not, they are public servants and they are accountable to the public.

Spending government money isn't easy.

Government spending is a particularly sensitive subject for taxpayers who tend to get very upset when governments collect any more tax money than is absolutely necessary to provide needed services. Consequently, governments have developed elaborate systems of fiscal constraints.

Government agencies don't simply send someone to the store to buy what they need, nor do they pay list prices. They have bidding processes in which they announce what they wish to buy and invite all interested vendors to submit bids. Then, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as poor past performance, excessively long delays before delivery would be made, or evidence that an inferior product is being offered, the bidder offering the lowest price on the specified items is the one from whom the items are purchased.

Despite occasional and well-publicized abuses --e.g., $600 toilet seats and $1200 coffee-makers, purchased by the Pentagon -- this usually results in substantially reduced purchase prices. It also eliminates impulse buying and encourages advance planning. For routine matters this is fine and highly desirable, but it can be a problem in some of the fast-breaking situations involved in public relations.

There are also certain expenditures that many government agencies simply will not permit.

• The purchase of alcoholic beverages, regardless of who will be consuming them, is one example. A government agency, whether it's a police department, a library, a fine arts board, or a state lottery commission, that wants to host an open house and reception invariably has to serve only non-alcoholic beverages or purchase alcoholic ones with non-governmental funds.

• Most governments also prohibit any expense that appears to be needlessly luxurious, e.g., first-class airplane travel or renting automobiles larger than mid-size sedans.

• Many agencies prohibit employees from taking anyone to lunch and paying for it with government funds.

• They may also prohibit paying an employee's dues in a professional association, meeting fees, or subscriptions to professional journals (All of which are professional expenses that private businesses routinely pay for their employees).

These spending restrictions can pose problems for employees who are trying to work to the best of their abilities. Government communicators, for instance, may be precluded from performing common courtesies --e.g., taking someone to lunch or to a ball game, or hosting a reception-- that are part of everyday public relations work, unless they pay for it out of their own pockets. They may also be prohibited from doing Xerox copying or printing for the local PRSA chapter or other professional organization or from donating office supplies to a community service group or from letting a local charity use their offices and telephones to conduct a phone-athon. They may not even be allowed to attend a professional conference or workshop during business hours unless they take vacation time to do it.

Considering government employment as an option?

Working in government does have inherent limitations and a fair share of hassles, but what job doesn't? It's certainly not for everyone, but government work, especially government communication, can be very satisfying and reasonably rewarding, especially for someone motivated by a desire to serve the public.