One of the problems with public risk management is that it does not always have a high profile within local government. Indeed, PRIMA's new president–Laura Peterson, state risk manager for Nebraska–told NU in an exclusive interview with our own Caroline McDonald that to be effective, public risk managers must make their case to those with the authority to make things happen. Such power brokers differ from one locale to another–it could be the governor, or the legislature's appropriations staff, or others within the bureaucratic maze. (For the full story, go to http://www.property-casualty.com/Issues/2010/June-7-2010/Pages/Public-Risk-Managers-Need-Access-To-Power-Brokers.aspx.)

The point is, Ms. Peterson says risk managers need a seat at the “decision-making table” to do their jobs most effectively.

Having a popular mandate to enhance safety for public sector workers and the local citizens they serve could give risk managers all the political capital they need to become a power broker in their own right. It certainly would raise the position's profile, and perhaps guarantee more press coverage–for better or worse.

In many states we elect judges, who have the power to send people to jail. Wouldn't it be nice to elect people who have the power to protect us? Who are responsible for the safety of our public infrastructure? Who see to it that our public sector employees are working in a safe environment?

Those who do a good job controlling risk and cost, who promote safety and prevent worst-case scenarios, would be rewarded with reelection. Those who don't get the job done would be voted out, replaced by someone who knows their position depends on how well they mitigate the potential for loss.

Some would no doubt see the risk manager post as a stepping stone to higher office, just as some elected insurance commissioners have behaved. But so what? Again, it's an added incentive to do a great job–to have a solid record on which to run.

Of course, campaign financing would be a problem. I can see the insurance companies and brokers lining up now to contribute to a risk manager's campaign fund, thereby setting up potential conflicts of interest and charges of corruption down the line. A publicly-financed campaign would be best, though unlikely.

On the other hand, carriers and brokers would also have to deal with public sector buyers who have their own independent power base. That could garner more respect on the part of the vendors they deal with, and give them more leverage in negotiations for terms, conditions, price and service.

What do you folks think?