INTRODUCTION
The importance of in-depth study on the arrangement of governmental organizations has become a necessity.
The necessity is founded upon the fact that public issues are becoming increasingly complex and dynamic.
However, the condition of local government organizations seems unlikely to support their work to provide public services in an effective, efficient and responsive manner.
Some chronic problems are still plaguing the internal body of local government organizations today. One of these is the existence of fat and corpulent structure of local government organizations. Such condition has been asserted by Prasojo (2006), saying that one of the crucial factors of the current government administration is its fat organizational structure that makes it work slowly and inefficiently. The fat and corpulent condition of local government organizational structure eventually creates a working culture of local bureaucracy that is slow, ineffective and inefficient in the discharge of their main duties and functions in providing public services and public goods. Similarly, the condition will reduce the level of responsiveness of the local government bureaucracy to the needs and preferences of its citizens.
Related to the above description, there are also a number of interesting facts about the problems of today’s
organizational structure of local government. One of them was raised by the Assistant of Institutional Deputy, of the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reforms, in the Workshop on the Implementation of Local Bureaucratic Reform, in Jakarta in last 2012. It was mentioned that, based on the evaluation of local government organizations, a number of problems were found, including among others: the too-long organizational level formation; the duplication of functions; the placement of different organizational units with different goals in one group; the presence of officers, reporting to more than one boss; the improper appointment or staffing; too many officers reporting to a supervisor; a position with no clear office functions;
organizational units with unbalanced functions, placed on similar organizational level; organizational units with all- inclusive functionality, placed just below the other units;
and the arrangement of unclear function; as well as the inaccuracy in placing strategically valuable functions.
In particular, one of the problems found in the structure of local government bureaucracy in Maros District is one reported in the research conducted by Thoha (2005).
The research-report noted that in this area, there are still problems in the restructuring of the bureaucracy, among others, there are still inconsistencies in the establishment of regional offices and technical institutions (LTD), where
Quo Vadis of the Organizational Restructuring of Local Government
MUH. TANG ABDULLAH
Department of Administrative Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia
Abstract. The research aims to describe the profile and restructuring process of organizational structure of Maros District government. The research uses the theory of organization, concept of local bureaucracy and local government to enrich the study. Through the method of qualitative research and the data analysis technique of interactive model, the research finds that the organizational restructuring of local government was conducted through new formation, merging, division, and removal, either in the structural position, or regional working unit itself. The study also shows the presence of several structural positions and working units that have more than one function. This indicates that the restructuring and functioning of local government organizations has not reflected the rationality of local bureaucracy and shows the complexity of the functions inherent in the organizational structure of local government.
Keywords: local bureaucracy, local government, organizational restructuring
Abstrak. Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan proses restruktrurisasi dan profil struktur organisasi pemerintahan daerah Kabupaten Maros. Penelitian menggunakan teori organisasi, konsep birokrasi pemerintah daerah (local bureaucracy), konsep pemerintahan daerah (local government) dan perspektif mengenai local bureaucracy untuk memperkaya kajian ini. Melalui metode penelitian kualitatif dan teknik analisis data model interaktif, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa restrukturisasi organisasi pemerinatah daerah dilaksanakan dengan cara pembentukan baru, penggabungan, pemisahan, dan penghapusan, baik pada jabatan struktural maupun satuan perangkat daerah itu sendiri. Hasil kajian menunjukan pula adanya beberapa jabatan dalam struktur dan satuan perangkat daerah yang memiliki lebih dari satu fungsi. Hal ini menandakan bahwa pembangunan struktur dan fungsi organisasi pemerintahan daerah belum mencerminkan rasionalitas birokrasi lokal serta menunjukkan adanya kompleksitas fungsi yang melekat pada suatu struktur organisasi pemerintah daerah.
Kata kunci: birokrasi lokal, pemerintahan daerah, restrukturisasi organisasi
between the offices and LTDs, there is obscure relevance with the vision and mission of local government. In addition, some basic duties and functions of regional working units seemed to be composed as activities that are not oriented to the predetermined objectives.
Against such a complex issue, the study on the restructuring of local government organizations (local bureaucracy) has a high value of urgency. Hence, in order to do a thorough research, a variety of relevant theories and concepts are used. Those include theories and concepts on organizations, concerning: organizational structure, local bureaucracy, and local government, as well as a particular perspective related specifically to the understanding local bureaucracy.
The most often used overview of organization theory, as the basis for assessing a particular organization, is the organization theory developed by Stephen P. Robbins.
According to Robbins (1994), an organizational structure has at least three dimensions that should always be a concern. The three dimensions are: First, the dimension of complexity that contains several elements, namely the element of differentiation or separation of duties within the organization; degree of specialization or division of labor; number of levels in the organizational hierarchy; the spread organizational units, stretched up geographically;
and the more the specialization, hierarchy and unit-spread, the higher is the complexity level of the organization.
Second, the dimension of formalization, consisting the elements of regulatory clarity and firmness; clarity of work procedures; clear working guidelines; standardization of implementation/working guidelines; and the firmness of ethics and discipline or what-should and should-not be done. Last, the dimension of centralization, consisting the clarity of final decision-making and clear division of authority.
Most studies on the local government organization always view it in terms of its organizational anatomy.
In such study, a bureaucratic government, according to Said (2007), always has principal elements, of which each has distinctive functions. The principal elements include: organizational structure, vision and mission of the organization, organizational personnel or officers, supporting facilities and bureaucratic leadership. The point is, from the perspective of the organizational anatomy, a bureaucracy cannot be completely perfect, there is always something to fix. A bureaucracy always follows the dynamics of human life surrounding it and responds to the demands of the communities it serves. A bureaucracy must continuously fit itself to the dynamics of the surrounding and not be content with itself, living with pride on top of the ivory tower. Bureaucracy is not an absolute, sacred institution that cannot be refined and perfected. Bureaucracy is not there to serve itself. In other words, a bureaucracy must be flexible and contextual, in line with the developments and demands of the reality it faces.
A different view on the structure of organization is also expressed by Henry Mintzberg. Each organization according to Mintzberg (1993) always has five basic elements that serve as the framework for classifying an organization. Those are (1) the operating core
(implementing elements), i.e. the employees performing work related to the primary task; (2) the strategic apex (the leader) i.e. the top managers, given overall responsibility for the organization; (3) the middle line (co-leader) i.e.
managers, liaising the operating core to the strategic apex;
(4) the techno structure (technical staff) i.e. the analysts, having the responsibility to carry out certain forms of standardization within the organization; (5) the support staff, i.e. those occupying the staff units, indirectly providing supporting services to organization. They are typically the elements of administration/bureau/section.
Furthermore, if further analyzed, an organization of (local) government bureaucracy basically has three levels, such as proposed by James Q. Wilson (1989).
He affirms that analyzing government bureaucracy can be done at three levels, i.e. (1) the operational level, i.e.
the employees who serve as the technical implementers and stand at the forefront; (2) the managerial level, i.e.
the employees who have the skills to distribute resources and direct elements of the organization to achieve their objectives; and (3) the executive level, i.e. officers who have autonomy and political authority, are responsible for the overall organization, create the strategy and innovation for organizational sustainability.
The local government system in Indonesia tend to be uniform and be so throughout its growing process. Should there be a change in the form of local government, it is due to the phase, instead of the plurality of local governance within the same phase. Consider, for example, under the Law No. 22 of 1999, there was uniformity of the form of local governments in Indonesia, both for provincial and district/municipal governments. Local authority as the executive organ of the local government is always compliant to the principle, consisting of the Council (DPRD) and Regional Head (the Mayor). Nevertheless, the term ‘local government’ refers only to the Regional Head and his Local Officers, not including the Council (DPRD) as the Regional Legislature. This condition is not compliant to the principle, since only the Council has the legislative function and is part of the Legislature together with the President in the legal system of our country.
Whereas the Council is actually a part of the Regional Executive Board who runs the function of management, budgeting, and supervision.
Therefore, in regional governance, DPRD is also a part of the executive bodies. Hence the framers of Law No. 32 of 2004 eliminate the use of the term ‘Regional Legislative Board’ for DPRD and ‘Regional Executive Board’ for Regional Head. Thus, currently both DPRD and Local Government are referred to as the regional administrator of governance which is a translation of the term local government or local authority. The understanding that the DPRD and Local Government is the component of local governance administrator is based on a shared understanding of the local government system in the UK and USA.
In this framework, the organ of District/Municipal government consists of Regional Council (DPRD) and Regional Head together with other local organizations.
The District Head or Mayor as the regional head only runs fully the duty of decentralization, yet does not receive
the duty of de-concentration. Both the District Head or Mayor, and the District/Municipal Council are political institutions, since the process of occupying the positions is through a democratic election, open for any political party.
An applicable view is offered by Supriyono (2007:
730), stating that studying the development of structure and function of local government institutions can be started by understanding the local government in the sense organ and function. It is described in Muluk (2009) that in the sense organ, a local government means the council (DPRD) and the regional Head (governor, regent or mayor), where the recruitment is based on the election.
While in terms of function, local government means the regional governance administered by local governing institution.
Relating to the sense organ, the types of local government include the strong mayor-council form, the weak mayor-council form, the council-manager plan, and the commission form. Norton, cited by Supriyono (2007), also adds the strong mayor-council form with the chief administrative or chief executive officer plan.
Chief executive plan and all institutions under it are the local bureaucracy. The local government institutions can perform a variety of government functions (multi or general purpose local authority) or just a government function (single or special purpose local authority).
In the sense organ and function mentioned above, the local government institutions in Indonesia can be considered as organs and tend to resemble the strong mayor-council form, or, even likely to be so with chief executive officers. This is evident from the existence of the post of Regional Head—called the Governor and Regent/Mayor in the context of Indonesia, that is the equivalent with the post of Mayor—and the DPRD as the embodiment of the council. While in terms of function, the governance carried out is of general nature (multi- purpose local authority), because the local government institutions run various functions of governance.
The regional organizations are the bureaucracy of autonomous region whose posts are occupied on the basis of the appointment (appointed) and closed for the political parties. Through the explanation of Hoessein (2009) it is understood that such recruitment process is intended to ensure the neutrality of the bureaucracy. The regional organizations consist of the Regional Secretariat, the Regional Office, and other local technical institutions, established in accordance with the local needs. Regional technical institutions may be an Agency, Office, Sub- District, Urban Village, etc.
In terms of the position of these regional organizations, Salomo (2006) explained that they are one of the instruments of regional governance in Indonesia, notably important for a number of reasons. The main reason is that the regional organizations are the “home” or sites that hold a variety of other important aspects of local government system; they are the forum as well as the framework for the financial system, personnel system, the planning system, public service system and other systems or sub-systems.
Furthermore, the regional organization is also a site in which local government carries out its various authorities or governmental affairs it holds. The final reason is that it is a site where the local governments carries out the region’s vision and mission, objectives, and provides public services that have become the duties and responsibilities of the region. Therefore, Salomo (2006) asserts that the success of a region in running its mission is depending on, among others, the produced organizational structure of the regional organizations. Has it accommodated various aspects such as the vision, mission, goals, main duties and functions, as well as the burden of public services?
Having theoretically and conceptually presented the organizational structure of the local government and the definition of local government itself, the following are the perspectives that can enrich the study on the local government restructuring, as proposed by Muttalib and Ali Khan (1982). Viewing the local government bureaucracy, both experts assert that in most countries, including some developed countries, there is a presumption that the local bureaucracy does not really matter, even tend to be ignored. Whereas the role of the local bureaucracy is very strategic in achieving the main objectives of the local government, particularly in providing effective and efficient services.
The issues related to local bureaucracy are crucial factor improving the performance of local government.
Therefore, the demand of the reform agenda of the local bureaucracy in local government is increasing. The demand of reform is particularly related to public services at the local level; in the Indonesia’s locality, it is called the local Civil Servants (PNS). This causes the posts of PNS vital. In other words, the local Civil Servants can be described as the spinal cord of the entire organization.
In relation to the understanding of the local civil service, Muttalib and Ali Khan consider that there are several crucial issues in the improvement of the performance of local bureaucracy. However, this study reveals only the issues concerning the existence of the local bureaucracy elites and the relation between bureaucracy and democracy.
The existence of local bureaucracy elites (Regional Heads) in the local government system adopt two patterns.
First, the pattern of the local executive, independent from political influence, where the local bureaucratic elites are appointed and controlled by the central government. The example of countries applying this pattern are French and India with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) model.
Second, the pattern of the local executive, where the local bureaucratic elites are chosen by the local council. The application example of this pattern can be seen in the United States, Germany, England with the City Manager and Chief Executive models.
Furthermore, the relation between bureaucracy and democracy became a prominent issue in the perspective of local bureaucracy. The idea is related to the issue of elected officers and permanent functionaries. The relation pattern between the two is intertwined with the democratic tradition embraced by a country. Countries with strong democratic tradition, or strong local legislative (Council) and dominant administrative process tend to have weak local bureaucracy. As a result, the performance
of bureaucracy is poor. To solve for a balance between bureaucracy and democracy in this pattern, it is advisable to strengthen administrative leadership and unify the doors of executive accountability to the Board of Council.
The countries with a strong democratic tradition are, among others the United States, Sweden, and the UK.
In countries with a weak democratic tradition (weak local council), less dominant bureaucracy, and weak legislative body, there tend to be unhealthy competitions that destroy the democratic values. The positive impact of the weak democratic tradition is it leads to a high performance of bureaucracy. However, the negative side is the strong dependence on the central government who dominantly control the bureaucracy. India is one of the adherents of this pattern.
RESEARCH METHODS
This research was conducted with a qualitative approach. The method is used to profoundly interpret the research results. The data analysis technique used is the interactive model developed by Miles and Huberman (1994), which includes the phases of collection, reduction, presentation, and inference of data. The data used are the primary and secondary data. The primary data were obtained through the technique of direct observation and in-depth interviews of informants. While the secondary data were obtained by tracking the documents of both regulations and policies, issued and stipulated by the local government of Maros District that are relevant with the restructuring of the bureaucracy. The informants in this study were determined by purposive sampling technique, consisted of 12 informants, classified as representatives from local government and non-local government. Informants from local government are: the Regional Secretary, Head of Planning Agency, the Head of Commission B of DPRD, the Head of the Standing Committee I of DPRD on the arrangement of regional organizations, three staffs of Maros local government.
While the non-governmental informants are: a local businessman, one NGO activist, a young man, one woman, and a religious and indigenous leaders of Maros.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
When this research was conducted, the organizational structure of regional organizations of Maros District was still in the transitional period from the old structure to the new structure. The scale of structure and scope of authority still referred to Government Regulation (PP) No. 38 of 2007, that regulates the distribution of governmental affairs among central government, provincial governments, district/municipal governments.
In principle, the policy provides a clear direction and guidance to the regions to manage their organizations efficiently, effectively, and rationally, according to the needs and capabilities of each region. Regarding the scale of regional organizations, it must at least consider the financial factors, local needs, scope of responsibility, scope of work areas and geographical conditions, the number and density of population, the potential of the
region, relating to the matters handled by the organization, as well as supporting working facilities.
The policy in principle provides a clear direction and guidance to the regions to manage an efficient, effective, and rational organization according to the needs and capabilities of each region. Regarding the scope of regional organizations, it must at least consider the financial factors, regional needs, scope of responsibility, working areas and geographical conditions, the number and density of population, the local potential relating to the aspects dealt with, as well as task supporting facilities.
This study shows that the institutional restructuring results of local government of Maros have been stipulated into seven policies of regional regulations, as already mentioned in the data presentation of research focus.
In the policy of institutional restructuring, the regional organizations of Maros undergoes some changes.
These changes not only concern the scope of authority, but also the number of organizational units of regional organizations, the number of structural positions, and changes in the nomenclature of some units and structural position.
The study shows that the formation of regional organizations (OPD) of Maros follows the maximum pattern, i.e. all governmental affairs, both mandatory and optional, are enacted in PP 38 of 2007 enacted into local government affairs of Maros. As seen in Maros District Regulation No. 07 of 2008 on the Government Affairs Division whose authority is in the government of Maros, Aricle 3 and 4 stipulate that there are 26 mandatory and 8 optional affairs of governance. The number of mandatory and optional affairs of Maros Government is exactly the same as the number contained in the regulation.
It is known that Article 7 of the aforementioned regulation stipulates that the mandatory affairs shall include: education, health, environment, public works, spatial plan, development planning, transportation, population and civil records, family planning and family welfare, social affair, national unity and domestic politics, regional autonomy, public administration, regional financial administration, regional organizations, staffing and coding, communication and information, community and village empowerment, housing, youth and sports, investment, cooperatives and SMEs, manpower affairs, food security, women’s empowerment and child protection, land, culture, statistics, archives, and libraries.
While the optional affairs shall include: trade, energy and mineral resources, tourism, marine and fisheries, agriculture, forestry, industry, and transmigration. Thus, the consequence is the organizational structure of Maros District must accommodate all types of affairs in the organizational structure of the region. The maximum pattern is basically justified, if the consideration is not only on the scope of the authority or the number of affairs that it contains, but also on other aspects, especially the capability of regional finance and the quality of human resources as well as supporting facilities and infrastructure, as stated in the explanation of the Government Regulation (PP) No. 41 of 2007 concerning the Regional Organizations.
In principle, the duties and functions of each regional organization are technically specified in the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 57 of 2007 on the Technical Guidelines for Structuring the Regional Organizations. It is, then, further and operationally detailed into seven policies of Maros regulation. The description of the duties and functions of each organization are as follow: Regional Secretary is an element of staff, substantially performing the functions of coordinating the policy formulation, coordinating the implementation of regional official duties, and coordinating regional technical institutions, starting from the process of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, reporting and providing administrative services. In addition, the regional secretariat also performs the function of law and legislation, organization and management, public relations, protocol and other general functions of government that are not included in the official duties and regional technical institution, such as co-operation business, border and others. It is then translated into the principle of duties and functions of the District Secretary of Maros in Regional Regulation (Perda) of Maros No. 19 of 2008 concerning the Organization and Management of District Secretariat of Maros.
The Secretariat of Council (DPRD) is an element of service, substantially providing administrative services to the Board that includes secretarial service, financial management, facilitating the organization of meetings, and coordinating the required staff of expertise according to the fiscal capacity of each region. It is then translated into the principle of duties and functions of the DPRD Secretariat of Maros in the Regional Regulation No. 20 of 2008 on the Organization and management of the DPRD Secretariat of Maros.
Inspectorate is a supervisory elements of governance, in districts and cities. To grant accountability and objectivity of the supervising result, in implementing his duties, the inspector is directly responsible to the District Head/Mayor; while to the Regional Secretary he has an obligation of administrative accountability in terms of finance and personnel. Elaboration of the duties and functions of the Inspectorate of Maros District is defined in Regional Regulation No. 23 of 2008 concerning the Organization and Management of the Inspectorate of Maros.
Regional Planning Board (Bappeda) is an element of governance planning, carrying out the duty of formulating regional planning policies, coordinating the planning preparation that includes the vision, mission, strategies, policies, programs, and development activities of each regional working unit (organization). It is further detailed in the principles of duties and functions in the Bappeda of Maros in the Regional Regulation No. 22 of 2008 on the Organization and Management of Regional Technical Institution of Maros.
Regional Office is an executive element of regional autonomy, substantially conducting the regional autonomy affairs, both mandatory and optional, according to the division of affairs set out in the Government Regulation concerning the Governance Affairs. Further elaboration of the duties and functions of Bappeda in Maros has been
set in PP No. 21 of 2008 concerning the Organization and Management of Regional Office of Maros.
The Regional Technical Institution (LTD), as a supporting element, more technical in nature. LTD can be a Board or Office and Hospital, determined by the workload analysis. It is then translated into the principle of duties and functions of the LTD of Maros in Perda No.
22 of 2008 on the Organization and Management of the Regional Technical Institution of Maros.
Mintzberg (1993: 11) in his theory of organizational structure explains that each organization has five basic elements that provide the framework for classifying an organization. The five basic elements of the organization include: First, the element of the strategic apex, defined as the top manager (top leader), given the overall responsibility for the operations and the achievement of organizational objectives. The second element is that the middle line, i.e. managers who act as the mediator between the operating core and the strategic apex. The third element is the operating core, defined as a group of officers, carrying out the basic work related to the production of goods and services. The fourth element is the techno structure, i.e. analysts having a responsibility to carry out a certain standardized form, such as creating the system and conducting the study, the functions of planning and monitoring within the organization. The last element is the element of supporting staff, defined as those who fill the staff unit, in charge of providing supporting services in the form of internal services for the operations of the organization.
Referring to the five basic elements offered by Mintzberg (1993), the classification of each regional organization can be done by looking at its position and its main duties and functions, as well as its title in the organization. Thus, the elements classified into the strategic apex are: the Regent and Vice Regent, as well as the DPRD, since they are the top manager (top leader) in the local government organization. Similarly, referring to the view of Wilson (1989) they are the top leader at the executive level. They have the political authority to decide strategic policy (controlling function) on the activities of government. They are the party who is responsible for the overall management of regional governance. In a smaller scale, each head of regional organization can also be classified into the element of strategic apex, since the Regional Secretary, the Secretary of the Board, the Head of Department, the Head of the Board, the Head of Office, the Director of Regional General Hospital (RSUD), inspectors, the Head of sub-district and urban village are the top leaders, responsible for the activities of each working unit, according to the authority granted.
Further, the units that can be classified into the elements of the middle line are the officers who serve as a mediator between the operating core and the strategic apex. The components of regional organization included in this classification are: the Regional Secretary and Assistant, since they have the duties and function of coordinating the implementation of duties of the Regional Department and LTD, starting from the stage of planning, implementation, and evaluation, according to their authority and affairs.
Nevertheless such duties and coordinating function also
staff function is performed by the Secretary of Office, the Secretary of LTD, the Secretary of Sub-District and Urban Village. In addition to the secretaries, the Head of Personnel Section in each working unit also performs this function of supporting staff.
Based on the classification to the regional organizations of Maros according to the concept of Mintzberg’s five basic elements of organization, there are some set of working units and groups of staffs or personnel that have more than one function (element). The Regent, Vice Regent and the Council (DPRD) are strategic apex elements since they serve as the top leader, in charge of all policies and the regional governance administration in Maros.
The Regional Secretariat, Secretariat of DPRD, Secretariat of Department, Secretariat of Board, Secretariat of Office, Secretariat of Sub-District and Urban Village serve as the supporting staff. While the unit of the Regional Secretary serves as the middle line and the supporting staff as well as functions as a strategic apex within the Regional Secretariat unit.
The assistant performs the function of middle line and supporting staff in the implementation of duties, according to the authority of each regional organization in Maros.
The Regional Technical Institution (LTD) performs the functions of techno structure, yet in a certain office also performs the function of operating core, such as the the Office of Regional Area & Investment Management, formerly named the Office of Airport and Bantimurung Area Special Management. The Regional Office performs the function of operating core, except for certain office, such as the Department of Regional Revenue Management for this office, in addition to functioning as the operating core, also performs the function of supporting staff, especially in supporting the financial services for the operations of other working units in Maros.
The Sub-District and Urban Village serve the techno structure as well as the operating core functions in certain affairs, such as Note of Residence. The leader of each unit in Maros region functions as the middle line as well as the strategic apex within the scope of its working unit under his authority.
The multifunction played by some working units or groups of staffs or officers in the regional organizations in Maros, according to Supriyono (2007: 732), indicates that the restructuring and functioning of local government organizations do not reflect the rationality of bureaucracy.
This is possible because in reality there is a complexity of functions inherent in the government organizational structure.
Based on the discussion about the organizational structure profile of the working unit of Maros Government in this section, it can be summarized that the existing organizational structure has covered the entire authority or governmental affairs carried out by the local government of Maros; thus the structure is considered supportive of the implementation of an effective regional governance.
CONCLUSION
The organizational restructuring of local government in Maros District was conducted through several strategies, put the Regional Secretary and Assistant in the level of
managers. Apart from taken by the Regional Secretary and Assistant, basically the mediating function can also be directly taken by the head of each working unit, according to his authority. In a smaller scale, the function of the middle line can also be performed by the Head of Department and Head of Section in the Regional Office and Regional technical Institution (LTD). For example, the Head of Department may be the middle line between the Head of Section of the Head of Office.
Further, the regional organization that can be classified as the operating core are the units and the positions that carry out the basic work of governance that produces an output in the form of goods and services. Seeing at the duties and functions of this element, then the entire Offices of the Region/District, Sub-District, and Urban Village can be classified as the operating core, because those three units carry out the duties of governance affairs or parts of them. In a smaller scale, the function of operating core is commonly carried out by the Head of Section who performs certain functions, in accordance with the authority of the unit concerned.
The element of techno structure implements the function of standardization and specific systems, such as conducting special field studies, as well as planning and monitoring functions. Referring to the function of this element, the units that can be classified into the techno structure element are: the working units within the LTD group (Agency, Office, Inspectorate, District Hospital, Sub-District and Urban Village). Operationally, this function can also be performed by certain Technical Implementing Unit (UPTD). In the micro-scale, the techno structure function is performed by the Head of Subdivision in each LTD and the Regional Office. In addition, the expert staff position can also be classified into this element, since according to PP 41 of 2007, the position of expert staffs is in charge of examining the regional governance affairs, according to their respective sectors that include: law and politics, governance, development, community outreach and human resources, as well as economics and finance.
The element of supporting staff is a group of staff or officers, in charge of providing supporting services in the form of internal services for the operations of the organization. Regional Secretariat can be classified into this element, since as an element of staff it has the duties and functions of coordinating the policy formulation and the implementation of the duties of regional organizations, starting from the planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, to the submission of reports as well as providing internal administrative services for all working units. This means that the officers and staffs at the District Secretariat provide administrative services to all regional organizations.
The Secretariat of DPRD is also included as the element of supporting staff, because as an element of service, it provides administrative services to the Council (DPRD) of Maros that include: secretarial service, financial management, facilitation of meetings and activities of legislators relating to the legislative, budgeting, and controlling functions. On a smaller scale, the supporting
i.e.: new formation, merger, separation, and removal, both on the structural position and the working unit itself.
There are some differences between the previous and current profiles of the organizational structure of regional organizations or bureaucracy. These differences include the aspects of: the increasing scope of authority, the declining number of working units and echelon positions in it, and some changing structural positions and working units due to the new nomenclature.
Referring to the structural classification based on the five basic elements and functions of an organization, there are several structural positions and working units in Maros that have more than one function. This indicates that the restructuring and functioning of local government organizations has not reflected the bureaucratic rationality, as well as indicates the complexity of functions inherent in a government organizational structure.
REFERENCES
Hoessein, Bhenyamin. 2009. Perubahan, Model, Pola dan Bentuk Pemerintahan Daerah: Dari Era Orde Baru ke Era Reformasi. Jakarta: Departemen Ilmu Administrasi Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik-UI.
Maros District. 2008. A Collection of Regional Regulations (Perda) of Maros District concerning the Institutional Structure of Maros Government.
Maros District. 2009. A collection of the Regulation of Maros’ Mayor concerning the Main Duties, Functions, and Description of Tasks and Management of Regional Organizations in Maros District.
Miles, M.B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1993. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, N J:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Muluk, M. R. K. 2009. Peta Konsep Desentralisasi dan Pemerintahan Daerah. Surabaya: ITS Press.
Muttalib, M. A. and M. A. Ali Khan. 1982. Theory of Local Government. New Delhi: Stereling Publishers.
Said, M. Mas’oed. .2007. Birokrasi di Negara Birokratis;
Makna, Masalah dan Dekonstruksi Birokrasi Indonesia. Malang: UMM Press.
Salomo, R. V. 2006. Pokok-pokok Pikiran Penyempurnaan UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah (Bagian Perangkat Daerah). Jakarta: Depdagri in cooperation with GTZ.
Kasim, Azhar. 2013. “Bureaucratic Reform and Dynamic Governance for Combating Corruption: The Challenge for Indonesia.” International Journal of Administrative Science & Organization, Journal Bisnis & Birokrasi, January, Volume 20, Number 1.
Prasojo, Eko. 2006. “Reformasi Birokrasi di Indonesia:
Beberapa Catatan Kritis.” Jurnal Bisnis & Birokrasi, Januari, Vol. 14, No.1.
Robbins, Stephen P. 1994. Teori Organisasi; Struktur, Desain dan Aplikasi. Translated by: Jusuf Udaya.
Jakarta: Penerbit Arcan.
Supriyono, Bambang. 2007. “Pembangunan Institusi Pemerintahan Daerah Dalam Penyediaan Prasarana.”
Jurnal Ilmiah Administrasi Publik, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Thoha, Miftah. 2005. Manajemen Kepegawaian Sipil di Indonesia. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. US: BasicBooks a Division of Harper Collins Publishers
