✊🏾✨Still Walking in Our Truth: From the LA Marquee to the Public Sector Margins ✊🏾✨

 By Eric Anthony Devezin, M.P.A.

On June 17, 2026, I had the privilege of serving as a featured panel speaker for the ASPA LGBT Advocacy Alliance webinar, "Still Walking in Our Truth: Queer Backlash in the 21st Century."

The panel brought together a distinguished group of public administration scholars, practitioners, and advocates to explore the political, social, and administrative dimensions of modern queer backlash. Below is the text and framework from my presentation.

At the recent ASPA LGBT Advocacy Alliance panel, I was asked how my personal journey navigating 1970s Los Angeles informs my response to the contemporary queer backlash we are witnessing today. The answer lies in understanding that bureaucratic retaliation is not a new invention; it is an administrative tradition.

The Socio-Historical Baseline: Weaponizing the Bureaucracy

If we are going to deconstruct how socio-political backlash functions today, we have to remember the levels of operation established when our visibility was first created.

Growing up in Los Angeles before relocating to Oakland, California. I witnessed the push and pull between macro-level bureaucratic aggression and grassroots cultural tenacity.

A critique from a public policy perspective views the past as a grim lesson in institutional gatekeeping. When activists attempted to hold the first officially sanctioned Gay Pride Parade on Hollywood Boulevard, the government pushed back violently. When rhetoric failed to stop the movement, bureaucracy was weaponized. The Los Angeles Police Commission created unnecessary, targeted permit stipulations such as a $1.5 million fee masquerading as a safety concern, essentially pricing a minority community out of exercising their constitutional rights.

While local media gatekeepers implemented a vigorous brownout to wipe us from existence, Black community-first leaders directly on Washington Boulevard were creating their own grassroots defiance. Right there on the marquee, the Ebony Showcase Theatre was producing Norman, Is That You?—a groundbreaking comedy that directly and compassionately tackled a Black family's acceptance of their gay son.

Contemporary Regions and Intersectional Vices

Following a successful career as a celebrity makeup artist and cosmetics entrepreneur for over 20 years, I made a conscious decision to re-enter academia to pursue my DPA at California Baptist University. What I have learned in the municipal buildings and academic spaces of the Inland Empire is that the administrative blowback we experience today is deeply systemic.

I describe these experiences as intersectional vices. Institutional friction in public service spaces does not occur solely because of race or presumed queerness but because of the poisonous intersection of racialized gatekeeping and homophobia.

This brings me to the core empirical focus of my current policy work: Administrative Chrononormativity—the institutional enforcement of strict timelines that systematically exclude non-normative life cycles.

We are in the midst of a quiet crisis with our aging LGBTQ+ community. By 2030, there will be four million LGBTQ+ elders living in the United States. The generation who waited outside the doors of the Ebony Showcase Theatre is now entering assisted living facilities, public housing, and public hospitals. They are entering systems with intake forms, statutes of limitations, and operating procedures designed entirely around heteronormative, nuclear-family timelines. Our elders are experiencing terrifying degrees of fragility, forcing them to ask: "Do I go back into the closet to allow the government to provide me with basic care?"

The Case Study: The Financialization of Human Safety

We must transcend superficial diversity statements and demand concrete accountability. In my current policy advocacy work in California, I am collaborating with Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson’s office to reform surveillance media retention legislation.

Most schools and municipalities have short-lived policies that dictate the administrative deletion of surveillance media within 30 days. From a policy perspective, a 30-day timeline is an administrative obstruction of justice. When queer or intersectional students and staff face targeted violence and harassment within institutional spaces, trauma and fear often prohibit timely reporting. By the time a victim navigates the emotional and administrative hurdles to report the incident, the strict 30-day chrononormative deadline has passed, the media has been erased, and the institution is protected.

Recently, when advocating for this reform at a local institution, the administrative pushback was the predictable bureaucrat stall: the anticipated expense of cloud storage.

We must name this what it is: the financialization of human safety. In the same way the L.A. Police Commission weaponized a $1.5 million permit fee in 1970, today's public systems weaponize the marginal cost of cloud servers to price vulnerable students and faculty out of their safety.

By working to extend that retention mandate from 30 days to three years, we intentionally rewire the administrative apparatus and remove the bureaucratic cover-up.

A Blueprint for Local Leaders

Our elders leave public administrators and local leaders with three straightforward instructions:

1. Audit Your Timelines: Intentionally design safety nets that make space for authentic realities, recognizing that chosen families do not always adhere to heteronormative life cycles.

2. Fund the Intersections of Care: Invest resources into physical spaces where queer individuals of all ages can grow old visibly and with dignity.

3. If You Don’t Speak Up, We Can’t Hear You: If your public service program or community center does not loudly and proudly state that you welcome queer elders, your silence will be interpreted as hostility.

When you craft public policy with the most intersectionally vulnerable in mind, you create the strongest public system for all marginalized people. We are still marching in our truth, applying thoughtful public administration theory to ensure equity becomes a codified, legally binding reality.

This presentation was delivered virtually on June 17, 2026, as part of the ASPA LGBT Advocacy Alliance Pride Panel Seminar.

This critical dialogue was made possible by the collective efforts of public sector leaders across the discipline. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the team who shared this space:

• Moderator: Dr. Richard Greggory Johnson III (Chair, ASPA LGBT; University of San Francisco)

• Other Featured Speakers: Eliza Farrow (Northeast Wisconsin Rainbow Collective), Diego Galego (Rutgers University-Newark), Samantha Larson (University of Wisconsin Oshkosh), and Wallace Swan (Walden University).

• Discussant & Tech Support: Claire Mostel (Miami-Dade County) and José Luis Irizarry (North Carolina Central University).

Event Co-Sponsors: Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration, ASPA Research Triangle (Pi Alpha Alpha), Northeast Wisconsin Rainbow Collective, Rutgers-Newark School of Public Affairs and Administration, PA Theory Network, Administrative Theory & Praxis (ATP), and the ASPA Student & New Administration Professionals Section.

To view the original event platform or connect with the organizers, visit Luma.

Data vs. Lived Reality: Analyzing Regional Workforce Infrastructure and Corporate Accountability in Los Angeles

The release of the LinkedIn Top Companies 2026 list for Los Angeles has sparked a telling debate among Southern California professionals. While data analysts cite high internal promotion rates, rapid skill acquisition, and platform connectivity to declare them the "best employers to grow a career," local workers on the ground are pushing back. Their critique hits on a fundamental tension well-known to public policy analysts: the decoupling of standardized corporate metrics from the lived economic realities of regional communities.

When a list of "Top Los Angeles Employers" is dominated by legacy aerospace giants, defense disruptors, and Silicon Valley satellite offices, it forces us to look past the algorithms and interrogate the data through a public administration framework. For an innovation economy to be truly sustainable and socially just, corporate growth cannot exist in a void separated from regional governance and local capacity building.

What Platform Metrics Overlook

In policy evaluation, utilizing skewed indicators inevitably yields a distorted view of systemic health. The methodology behind the 2026 rankings relies heavily on standardized platform activity tracking, title transitions, coworker connection volumes, and skills added to profiles.

While these markers successfully measure corporate visibility and tech-sector adaptability, they inadvertently create an analytical bias:

• High platform connectivity and aggressive profile updating often signal an unstable workplace where employees feel compelled to maintain external visibility due to economic precarity, rather than a thriving, secure workplace culture.

• Standardized metric aggregation heavily favors massive global brands over homegrown, mid-sized enterprises. A multi-billion-dollar defense or tech firm can easily skew "employee presence in the city" data purely through scale, despite being entirely insulated from the surrounding neighborhood's socio-economic struggles.

When public and private metrics reward sheer organizational scale over local institutional integration, they obscure the true health of the regional workforce.

Cross-Sector Convergence and Regional Capacity

Commentators on the data have rightly pointed out that Los Angeles has evolved into a fascinating cross-industry ecosystem. The convergence of entertainment storytelling, advanced manufacturing, AI engineering, and biotechnology creates an incredibly dynamic labor market.

However, from a public-sector perspective, this cross-sector fluidity carries a distinct risk of exacerbating regional inequities if left entirely to market forces.

When global tech and defense firms establish massive satellite operations in Southern California, they draw heavily on local infrastructure, public transit, and regional resources. If these corporations do not actively collaborate with local governance bodies such as county commissions, community action partnerships, and local workforce development boards, the wealth and career progression tracked by data scientists will remain concentrated within an elite tier of technical workers. The surrounding communities are left to absorb the burdens of hyper-gentrification, strained infrastructure, and widening economic disparities.

Shifting from Presence to True Public Accountability

To build a regional economy that is genuinely equitable, public administrators and community stakeholders must demand that major employers shift their focus from mere geographic "presence" to genuine public accountability. True workforce equity and community capacity building look like:

1. Moving away from exclusionary recruitment practices by actively partnering with regional public universities, community colleges, and localized public authorities to source talent from historically underserved sectors of the metro area.

2. Engaging corporate leadership directly in local public-private partnerships that address localized crises such as housing insecurity, infrastructure deficits, and municipal resource allocation, ensuring that corporate profits actively translate into community well-being.

3. Developing regional evaluation standards that grade companies not just on internal gender parity or standardized skill boxes, but on their measurable contribution to local wealth retention and community health.

The friction surrounding the 2026 Top Companies list is a healthy indicator that the public is no longer satisfied with top-down, corporate-centric definitions of success.

As we analyze public policy and community equity at The Policy Nexus, we must continue to challenge automated metrics that prioritize corporate scale over community care. True regional sustainability is built from the ground up, rooted in how intentionally an institutional system serves and protects the human capital driving it.

Join the Analysis: How can regional public policy leaders construct better accountability frameworks to ensure global companies invest meaningfully back into local workforce pipelines? Share your insights and analytical perspectives in the comments below.

Featured Panel: Reimagining Health Justice and Dismantling Structural Inequities

As public administration scholars, policy practitioners, and community advocates, we frequently confront a stark reality: marginal reforms are entirely insufficient when addressing systemic harm. To truly advance community health, we must shift from crisis management and performative equity commitments toward structural transformation.

A recent virtual convening hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s initiative, The Intersection, perfectly encapsulates this critical dialogue. Titled "A New Vision For Care: Building Anti-Racist Health Systems," this panel brings together prominent leaders at the nexus of policy, healthcare, and community organizing to dissect the deep-seated hierarchies within our public health infrastructure and map out an actionable framework for institutional change.

You can watch the full 58-minute panel discussion below:

Watch the Discussion on YouTube

(Convened on Tuesday, May 19, 2026)

The Panelists & Leadership

• Moderator: Anton Gunn (REACH Beyond Solutions)

• Opening Remarks: June Glover, MSW (Senior Program Officer, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

• Dr. Jamila Michener (Associate Professor & Director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures, Cornell University)

• Jennifer Wells, MSW (Director of Economic Justice, Community Change)

• Robin Wright-Pierce, MPA (Founder & CEO, Transforming Change)

The dialogue centers around a core tenet of critical policy analysis: policy is downstream from power. For health equity to be sustainable and legally durable, public administrators and community stakeholders must fundamentally restructure how power, financing, and accountability are distributed.

June Glover opens the session by addressing how public systems historically shift blame onto marginalized populations rather than holding the flawed, bureaucratic systems that constrain individual choices accountable. True transformation requires moving past incremental tweaks on the margin and embedding accountability mechanisms directly into the core administrative structures to prevent future policy reversals.

Dr. Jamila Michener expands on the U.S. health system's structural architecture, emphasizing that disparities are not accidental. They are the direct result of historical design and multi-level policy choices that concentrate power among corporate entities and elites while depriving vulnerable populations of a political voice. Because these inequities have permeating roots dating back to the foundation of our public institutions, fixing them demands an overhaul of decision-making bodies.

Jennifer Wells shares powerful insights from grassroots listening sessions in the American South. She highlights the heavy burdens of medical debt and geographic isolation in rural areas, where hospital closures leave communities with severely restricted access to care. Her findings underscore that communities hold the answers; the path forward involves shifting power back to the grassroots level, expanding diverse practitioner bases (such as midwifery and doula networks), and ensuring that public systems serve people over profit.

Robin Wright-Pierce addresses the courage required to navigate institutional pushback, retaliation, and administrative roadblocks in difficult political climates. Utilizing the Wise Warrior leadership framework, she details the necessity of grounding policy advocacy in a historical context, engaging the lived expertise of community elders, and building robust, collaborative networks across different sectors of the movement ecosystem to translate ideas into direct political action.

If we are to build public systems that genuinely protect underserved communities, we must design explicit, non-tokenistic pathways for feedback and co-production. When the populations most impacted by a policy have direct, structural influence over budgets, administrative timelines, and organizational governance, we move closer to a society where health is treated as a fundamental right rather than a structural privilege.

Join the Conversation

How can public administrators better integrate grassroots feedback loops to challenge traditional top-down decision-making? Leave your thoughts and analytical insights in the comments section below.

Support the Professional Student Degree Act (H.R. 8659)

Find Your Representative | house.gov

More Than a Metaphor: When Art and Advocacy Collide over "The Shelter"

In the world of public administration, language is rarely neutral. A single word can be a creative prompt for one person and a call to political action for another. I recently came across a national kids' art competition titled The Shelter. The intent was innocent: asking children to draw what makes them feel safe, a home, a hug, or a memory.

See it here: The Shelter: National Kids Art Competition. While the intent was a simple exploration of safety, it sparked a much larger conversation about how we define 'Shelter' in the public sector.

However, the digital response to this announcement was a masterclass in modern advocacy. Comments quickly surfaced, criticizing the theme's misleading nature, with some suggesting that resources should go toward housing the unhoused rather than an art competition about them.

Intent vs. Impact

As someone who sits at the intersection of academic research and community action, I found this tension fascinating. The competition isn’t actually about the homelessness crisis; it’s about the universal human need for safety. But for a community currently grappling with housing instability, the word "shelter" is radioactive. It carries the weight of policy failures, long waitlists, and emergency beds.

This is where administrative chrononormativity often enters the chat. We see a disconnect between the following:

• The Artistic Timeline: A quarterly competition celebrating a static idea of comfort.

• The Lived Timeline: The urgent, daily survival of families for whom "shelter" is a precarious, shifting reality.

Why We Need Both

We shouldn't criticize the art. We need our children to imagine safe spaces, to value belonging, and to visualize warmth. That imagination is the first step toward building a society that prioritizes these values.

However, we must also validate the advocate's "visceral" reaction. When people are fighting for real roofs over real heads, the aestheticizing of the word "shelter" can feel like a luxury they can't afford.

The Policy Nexus

My takeaway? We don't have to choose between celebrating creativity and demanding equity. We can support the junior artist drawing a bird's nest while simultaneously holding our governance bodies accountable for the housing metrics that keep that child safe in the real world.

Let's use these moments not for division but for clarity.

Let’s ensure that the "shelters" our children draw today become the standard of living we guarantee for everyone tomorrow.

Beyond the $2.5 Billion: The Urgent Need for AI Information Oversight in Healthcare

Recent industry reports from Becker’s Healthcare highlight a massive shift: insurers like UnitedHealth and Elevance are betting over $2.5 billion on AI to automate everything from prior authorizations to member navigation. By 2026, systems like 'Avery' are expected to reach 20 million members.

While the efficiency gains are touted at 70%, as a researcher in Administrative Chrononormativity, I must ask: Who is auditing the data behind these gains?

Efficiency without equity is simply the automation of erasure. My work with the EACAD and DACLAC has already uncovered significant 'blind spot' data, such as the 38% of LGBTQIA+ elders who fear they won't qualify for services. If these $2.5 billion systems are trained on exclusionary historical data, they will continue to penalize Black and LGBTQ+ communities at scale.

At The Policy Nexus, we advocate for a new standard: AI information oversight. We must move toward frameworks that ensure the 'administrative clocks' of the future are as inclusive as the diverse populations they serve.

The Efficiency Trap: Taylorism and the Roots of Administrative Chrononormativity

In the world of public policy, we are taught to worship at the altar of the One Best Way. We strive for systems that are streamlined, predictable, and, above all, efficient. But as we dig into the intellectual foundations of public administration, we find that our modern obsession with standardized timelines began with Frederick Winslow Taylor.

The Birth of the Stopwatch Culture

In the late 19th century, Taylor transformed the factory floor into a laboratory. By using a stopwatch to break down human movement into measurable units, he birthed scientific management (or Taylorism). His goal was noble in a vacuum: to eliminate the greatest misfortune of the era, inefficiency.

Taylor’s 1911 masterpiece essay, The Principles of Scientific Management, established the rules that still govern our bureaucracies today:

• Every action must be timed and optimized.

• There is only one right way to perform a task.

• Management thinks and schedules; the worker executes.

The Policy Nexus: When Efficiency Becomes Exclusion

While Taylorism helped build the modern industrial state, it also hard-coded a specific philosophy into our policy DNA: Chrononormativity.

In my research, I define "administrative chrononormativity" as the use of standardized timelines and normative life cycles to dictate policy eligibility and success. When Taylor synchronized the factory to a single rhythm, he created a system that only worked for the standard body and the standard life.

When we apply Taylorist efficiency to public health or social services today, we often see the following:

1. Policy deadlines that assume everyone has the same clock (e.g., rigid enrollment or reporting windows).

2. Measuring the success of a human service by how quickly a case is closed, rather than by the quality of the outcome.

3. The Erasure of Non-Normative Lives: Systems designed for a linear, "9-to-5" life cycle often fail those in queer communities, aging populations, or underserved groups whose lives don't follow a Taylorist conveyor belt.

Reimagining the Best Way

Frederick Winslow Taylor died in 1915, but his "stopwatch" still haunts our administrative hallways. Terms like Total Quality Management (TQM) and Six Sigma are the direct descendants of his steel-mill experiments.

As public administrators, our challenge in 2026 isn't just to be efficient; it's to be equitable. We must ask:

Who is being timed? And whose life cycle is being erased by the standard we've created?

If we want to build a truly inclusive public sector, we have to move beyond the one-best-way and start designing policies that respect and support the diverse, non-linear rhythms of the communities we serve.

Figure 1: Definition of Scientific Management. Source: Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). Primer of Scientific Management. Harper and Brothers. (Public Domain).

Figure 2: Drawing of Fredrick W. Taylor from the Pickens Sentinel-Journal, September 7, 1911.