British Election

I usually don't comment on politics, but since this is about what is happening across the Pond, I though I would give it a go. It has been fascinating watching the British election unfurl. They held their first ever televised leaders debate - something that we take for granted here in Canada. And the outcome of that debate has been an increase in support for the third party in the UK, the Liberal Democrats under the leadership of Nick Clegg.

With voting scheduled for May 6, 2010, polls indicate that the outcome will be a "hung" parliament - a minority government in our nomenclature. One of the things that I have found rather strange is how partisan the media in the UK is. Rupert Murdoch controls 40% of the newspapers in the UK and his papers have been slagging the Lib Dem leader in screaming headlines. In the language of Yes, Minister, I believe that these papers have been "economical with the truth". The Sun has also been accused of censoring a poll that was favourable to Nick Clegg the Lib Dem leader. Take a look at the Independent's article that lays out the claim made by these papers and the truth.

Another interesting aspect of the UK election is the work of various think tanks in providing analysis of the platforms of the various parties. One such think tank is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Over the years I have read a number of their analyses and always found them sound. They have just published quite a number of papers analyzing various aspects of the platforms, including Taxes and benefits; education policy; green policy; welfare reform; productivity, innovation and corporate tax; and the public services. They are well worth the read.

Transformational Leadership Panel

I was asked by Rob Dowler of MGS (Government of Ontario) to moderate a panel at this year's Showcase Ontario. The panel was on "Transformational Leadership for Today's Public Service" and took place on September 23, 2009. They assembled a stellar panel for me to moderate. The panelists were:

* Shirley Hoy, former City Manager, City of Toronto and now CEO of Toronto Lands Corp;
* Tony Dean, former Ontario Secretary of the Cabinet and now a fellow in residence at the School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Toronto; and
* Alex Himelfarb, former Clerk of the Privy Council (Government of Canada) and the newly appointed Director of the School of Public & International Affairs, Glendon College.

To say this was a stellar panel would be a gross understatement. What was interesting to me was that all three worked together to achieve some substantial breakthroughs in intergovernmental cooperation. As you can imagine, entrenched interests make this kind of three level cooperation difficult most of the time. Anyway, the 10 minute presentations from each of the panelists was quite interesting.

Tony was the first to speak and he talked about 1) the importance of "people issues" in the public service including proper and enlightened leadership; 2) Complex policy issues and 3) Execution. He spoke of the need for the establishment of benchmarks and measurement which requires robust information systems to provide evidence in terms of both delivery and policy. He underscored the importance of public sector leadership in protecting the core values of the public service and building a culture of flexibility and innovation within the public service.

Alex spoke about 1) the deterioration of the policy role within government and 2) the challenge to be innovate with the current "cult of accountability". He contrasted today's Deputy Minister to DM's when he first joined government. DM's 20 years ago focused on policy and provided "fearless advice and loyal implementation", while today's DM is an executioner and provides "loyal advice and fearful implementation". He sees the reductions of the past having a significant negative impact on the policy capability of public service. As a result, there is decreased demand for policy advice from politicians. The advent of technology has resulted in the "democratization" of the policy process, where expertise has become devalued. On the cult of accountability Alex spoke to the need to be innovative (as part of a learning organization) and to take risks which has been affected by a focus on blame.

Shirley spoke of the "implementation gap" in government...how to properly implement broad policy decisions and that public servants had become too risk averse. She spoke of the need to focus on results and outcomes and using technology as an enabler for transformation. She sees that we are in a post bureaucratic model of government and that no single level of government can tackle the complex problems and policy challenges that face society today.

Following the presentations, the floor was opened up for a Q & A session. There were questions on technology as an enabler; the trend of centralization of decision making; and how to ensure innovation within public service.

A video of the session is presently being edited. Once it is complete, I will provide you with the link so that you can all watch what was a fascinating session.

Government Motors....oops I mean General Motors

The last number of months has seen that cornerstone of American capitalism, General Motors spiral downward and almost disappear as a corporation. Without the financial backing of the US, Canadian and Ontario governments, the company that was too big to fail would have failed. Not long ago our neighbours to the south used to say "What is Good for GM is good for America". That was when American designed cars ruled the road.

Now GM has gone through bankruptcy and a new General Motors has been created from its best assets with its other so-called assets part of a "Motors Liquidation Company". A friend forwarded me an interesting article from the New York Times about the restructuring of GM.

GM is now a public company, owned by the 3 governments and by the United Auto Workers. The plan is for governments to slowly exit the company over the next 5 years or so. In the meantime, there are some in Canada who are calling for increased transparency from this publicly backed company. I guess all Canadian citizens are now shareholders of GM and that those of us who live in Ontario are doubly lucky as we are also shareholders. Should we expect that GM adhere to the same rules on transparency and accountability that other government funded enterprises (eg: LCBO, Lottery Corp) must follow? This is an interesting question but there are substantial differences between a "government enterprise" and the financial backing that governments have given GM. The biggest is that the government enterprises will remain in the public sphere for policy and regulatory reasons (control of the sale of alcohol or games of chance), whereas governments' foray into the automobile sector is only (hopefully) temporary to salvage important manufacturing jobs and research & development capacity.

Another thought that comes to mind is whether those who have espoused the proposition that "government is the problem" (enunciated famously by Ronald Reagan) have changed their minds as now it seems that "government is the solution" to the financial crisis - just look at the various bank and brokerage house bailouts by government as well as the GM and Chrysler supports plus all the stimulus spending that governments around the world are engaged in. I wait to see what they say!

The Power of Public Information

A friend recently sent me a link to a very interesting website, from where else, but the UK.

The UK government has embarked upon an engagement process with its citizenry to make the reams of information that is produced by government more useful and relevant to users. This means developing better performance metrics as well as some simple things such as making relevant data more accessible and not hidden on some obscure website or some inaccessible publication. On this website they have created a wiki to engage with citizens and create a mechanism for idea generation and discussion. And they have created a contest, with a prize pool of £20,000 for the best ideas. Want to see more? Go to the “Show Us a Better Way” website

I think this is a great idea. We could probably use the same type of citizen engagement mechanism here is Canada given the plethora of information from the 3 orders of government, from educational institutions (school boards, colleges, universities), from health care providers (hospitals, regional health authorities, nursing homes, etc) and from many other public sector bodies. Would it be nirvana to think that we could develop measures that are comparable across the country? Would it be nirvana to provide citizens with the information they need in a clear, concise and easily understandable form? I’m giving some thought on how we can emulate the work in the UK here in Canada. You got any ideas on this, either comment below or you can e-mail me at gsekaly@ipac.ca or you can join the discussion on new IPAC facebook site! (Yes I have created an IPAC facebook site – will be publicising it more broadly shortly).

I want to thank my friend Peter MacLeod from MASS LBP for drawing this to my attention.

Freedom of Information & Transparency

For the third consecutive year, the Canadian Newspaper Association has conducted a survey of the ability of individuals to access information at various governmental offices - at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Once again this year, they found too many cases of government employees not being forthcoming with the information, and in some cases being obstructionist.

In a democracy that espouses the principles of transparency and openness in government, the publics right to know should be paramount. It is the foundation of our democratic society. Frankly, a citizen should not have to file a freedom of information request to obtain basic information. It is the duty of all civil servants to quickly and expeditiously provide this information to the public. Even if the information in question makes the government "look bad", this information must not be with-held. It is only with complete information that citizens can hold government accountable. It is only with complete information - the good, the bad and the ugly- that organizations can learn, improve and innovate.

Based on the results of this annual survey, we obviously have a long way to go in Canada. At the same time, public servants must guard against not providing their recommendations on paper. Too many times, oral briefings/discussions are being substituted for the traditional briefing note. The historical record of the wherefores and the whys of government decisions are important to understand the context of a decision. We should not be afraid of documenting these. So what do you think about this issue?

L’accès à l’information et la transparence

Pour la troisième année consécutive, l’Association canadienne des journaux a conduit un sondage concernant la capacité des gens d’accéder à l’information de divers bureaux gouvernementaux – aux paliers municipal, provincial et fédéral. À nouveau cette année, elle a trouvé un nombre important de cas où les employés publics ne sont pas communicatifs à propos de l’information et, parfois même, se montrent obstructionnistes.

Dans une démocratie qui épouse les principes de la transparence et l’ouverture d’esprit, il semblerait primordial que le public ait le droit de savoir. C’est le fondement de notre société démocratique. Franchement, un citoyen ne devrait pas avoir à remplir une demande d’accès à l’information pour obtenir de simples renseignements. C’est le devoir de tous les fonctionnaires de fournir rapidement et dans les meilleurs délais ces renseignements au public. Même si les renseignements en question ne donnent pas une bonne impression du gouvernement, ils ne doivent pas être dissimulés. Ce n’est qu’avec toute l’information que les citoyens peuvent tenir responsable le gouvernement. Ce n’est qu’avec toute l’information – la bonne, la mauvaise et la laide – que les organismes peuvent tirer des leçons, s’améliorer et innover.

D’après les résultats du sondage de cette année, nous avons visiblement bien du chemin à faire au Canada. Néanmoins, les fonctionnaires doivent se garder de ne pas fournir leurs recommandations par écrit. Trop souvent, les discussions ou rapports verbaux remplacent la note documentaire traditionnelle. Le dossier historique des aboutissants et des tenants des décisions gouvernementales est important pour comprendre le contexte d’une décision. Nous ne devrions pas craindre de les documenter. Et vous, qu’avez-vous à dire à ce sujet ?