Our Incompetent Federal Bureaucracy

[Saturn]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not even sure YOU know what you're talking about.

Argus, you have used this argument several times and I find it presumptuous and irritating.

May be irritating but you asked for it. Honestly, it's far more irritating when you don't know what you are talking about but you are so opinionated and you are out looking for victims. You should give up this bad habit, it's irritating.

According to you, Ottawa bureaucrats are the experts and the rest of us simply don't understand the complexities (the nuance) of how government works. We can't even get the acronyms right when referring to public sector unions.

It doesn't take an expert to know that the rank and file in any organization just do the work they are told to do, they don't make any important decisions and they are not the ones who design programs or products and services. Going after the public unions for deficiencies in government programs is like yelling at your filight attendent for losing your air miles because they expired. Now that's pretty dumb of you.

[August1991]

Anyone with any knowledge of bureaucracy knows the problems of policy and program failures lay with leadership, not the rank and file who implement those policies and programs.

Saturn makes a similar argument.

Well, let's take a look at immigration (for example).

There is clearly no room for sentiment in this process of natural selection, but for the Liberals to pin the blame for the ills of the immigration system on the Conservatives is cynical in the extreme. The system is indeed sick: The backlog of applications from potential immigrants now totals 800,000, up from 50,000 when the Liberals took office in 1993; only a quarter of all immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion; the refugee process is more sympathetic to Mexicans than displaced Africans fleeing rape and torture in Darfur and so on.

John Ivison

This is your favourite punching bag, Argus. You usually blame the politicians but apparently the two parties (with very different constituencies) don't know what to do - or plan to do the same.

In fact, from the PM, minister's office, committees, MPs, DMs (remember al-Mashat) all the way down to immigration officers or even file clerks, you have one big mess.

A recent study by the Fraser Institute quoted an Australian academic as saying: "We are in awe at the ineptitude of the Canadian immigration selection process."

To blame politicians (but not managers) is wrong. To say that line officers are "only following orders" absolves them of the sheer incompetence they are capable of inflicting. A simple clerk's incorrect decision to request more documents can lead to year long delays. (Of course it happens.)

I don't have an answer but I think a solution resides in the federal government concentrating only on the things it should do. Bureaucrats should stay with simple procedures and not try anything fancy, complicated or ground breaking. I dunno.

[Argus]

Anyone with any knowledge of bureaucracy knows the problems of policy and program failures lay with leadership, not the rank and file who implement those policies and programs.

Saturn makes a similar argument.

Well, let's take a look at immigration (for example).

There is clearly no room for sentiment in this process of natural selection, but for the Liberals to pin the blame for the ills of the immigration system on the Conservatives is cynical in the extreme. The system is indeed sick: The backlog of applications from potential immigrants now totals 800,000, up from 50,000 when the Liberals took office in 1993; only a quarter of all immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion; the refugee process is more sympathetic to Mexicans than displaced Africans fleeing rape and torture in Darfur and so on.

John Ivison

This is your favourite punching bag, Argus. You usually blame the politicians but apparently the two parties (with very different constituencies) don't know what to do - or plan to do the same.

The current system is the Liberals' baby, and the liberals' baby. The Tories, I think, know exactly what needs to be done, but are hamstrung by the fact they're in a minority situation, and that any move to do what is blindingly obvious needs to be done to immigration will result in the media, the NDP and Liberals screaming racism, racism from every street corner. The tories are particularly vulnerable to this accusation due to decades of Liberal smear tactics. But while you might have a problem with immigration, the left wing loves it, the artists and intellectuals, the media types, the academics, and certainly all the squishy, multicultura supporters throughout Liberalland. To blame the Tories for immigration is fatuous nonsense.

To blame politicians (but not managers) is wrong. To say that line officers are "only following orders" absolves them of the sheer incompetence they are capable of inflicting. A simple clerk's incorrect decision to request more documents can lead to year long delays. (Of course it happens.)

Clerks don't make the system. High priced people with initials after their names make recommendations about rules and policies to follow, and even higher priced guys who are usually political appointees then decide whether those rules and policies should be implimented. If those rules and policies stretch resources to the limits and beyond, and the politicians don't offer up more resources, then the responsibility lies on the heads of the politicians, not the clerks. Clerks make mistakes, just like anyone. A system so flawed that an incorrect decision made by a clerk delays things by a year is a system that needs to be crashed and burned and rebuilt. And it has been glaringly obvious for many, many years that the immigration and refugee systems are both in horrible need of this.

But remember that any interference in immigration draws howls of racism. Even when Liberals do it. There have been several attempts, going back to Barbar McDougal was immigration minister under Mulroney, for example, to require all immigrants know one of Canada's official languages before coming here. They have all been put off by screams of racism from the media and chattering classes, and opposition from the NDP and within the Liberal party.

[Saturn]

The current system is the Liberals' baby, and the liberals' baby. The Tories, I think, know exactly what needs to be done, but are hamstrung by the fact they're in a minority situation, and that any move to do what is blindingly obvious needs to be done to immigration will result in the media, the NDP and Liberals screaming racism, racism from every street corner. The tories are particularly vulnerable to this accusation due to decades of Liberal smear tactics. But while you might have a problem with immigration, the left wing loves it, the artists and intellectuals, the media types, the academics, and certainly all the squishy, multicultura supporters throughout Liberalland. To blame the Tories for immigration is fatuous nonsense.

But remember that any interference in immigration draws howls of racism. Even when Liberals do it. There have been several attempts, going back to Barbar McDougal was immigration minister under Mulroney, for example, to require all immigrants know one of Canada's official languages before coming here. They have all been put off by screams of racism from the media and chattering classes, and opposition from the NDP and within the Liberal party.

Argus, since you apparently know a lot that I don't, could you discuss in some detail what in particular is ailing the immigration system and how it can be fixed? And where this "racism" factor comes in? Thx.

[August1991]

The Tories, I think, know exactly what needs to be done, but are hamstrung by the fact they're in a minority situation, and that any move to do what is blindingly obvious needs to be done to immigration will result in the media, the NDP and Liberals screaming racism, racism from every street corner. The tories are particularly vulnerable to this accusation due to decades of Liberal smear tactics. But while you might have a problem with immigration, the left wing loves it, the artists and intellectuals, the media types, the academics, and certainly all the squishy, multicultura supporters throughout Liberalland.

IOW, you naively believe that the Tories (secretly) agree with you that the solution to our "immigration mess" is to refuse everyone. And the reason we don't adopt this solution is because of those left wing artist do-gooder academic intellectual types.

Gee, Argus. Now you're blaming those leftist artist academic... (I thought you said it was the fault of the EX managers? No?)

Look, we can no more refuse all immigrants than we can refuse to issue SIN cards or passports. IOW, the problem is well beyond trying to refuse everyone.

Clerks don't make the system.

Yes they do. Our government now amounts to petty bureaucrats with the power to make decisions having a tremendous effect on our lives. The appeal procedure is so cumbersome and costly that most people give up. Argus, have you ever dealt with an immigration clerk or a provincial health ministry bureaucrat? How about a tax official? Anyone of these people can make decsions that will cost you thousands of dollars. Until it happens to you, you probably won't believe it.

True, some are reasonable and correct. Others are not.

----

Argus, excepting your extravagant cries of frustration, you post here like an Ottawa bureaucrat who believes the system in which you work has some connection to the outside world. It doesn't.

I once made the claim that any federal civil servant could arrange to have almost anyone hired on contract in the federal service within about six months. Argus, you disputed that claim.

Members of the Commons public accounts committee say they fear senior Mounties covered up a nepotism scandal and the misappropriation of $3.1-million from the RCMP pension fund.

...

Assistant auditor-general Hugh McRoberts told the committee that the first whiff of trouble was apparent to an RCMP staffing officer in May of 2002.

This officer complained about nepotism in the hiring of casual employees for work in the pension office. Forty-nine of the 65 casuals were friends or relatives of Mounties, and they were paid twice the specified government rate for their type of office work.

G & M

My claim was far less egregious than this RCMP case. I simply meant that a civil servant knows far more about how to get a good summer job (for example) in the federal government than my neighbour here in Montreal.

----

The federal bureaucracy is a grotesque beast that doesn't do what ordinary Canadians want it to do.

[August1991]

If my bank or credit card company told me that I couldn't pay my bill online, I'd change banks.

These jokers now want more money from us. Has anyone considered the possibility that giving more money to the federal government will not solve our problems?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pressing the Canada Revenue Agency to fix a computer glitch that has been preventing Canadians from filing their tax returns online.

It will be a "few days" before technicians fix the glitch, which surfaced last weekend, he said Friday.

"All I can say is, we're obviously...on the backs of the department to get on with fixing this problem as soon as possible," Harper said. "We're confident at this point that it can be fixed in a way that will not disrupt the deadlines for tax filing."

He added that while the glitch is "a very serious problem," it doesn't mean the April 30 deadline for filing a return will be extended.

Link

And why do we still have this crazy system where everyone has to pay all at the same time, once a year? What other payment system works that way?

The federal bureaucracy is like a drug addict that is on a treadmill and can only think of getting more. It's incapable of stopping and thinking about what it is doing.

[August1991]

"I think what the public is hearing, perhaps in an abrupt way, is what I think has been pretty clear to people who have studied this for a long time -- that there really was a problem of communication between different levels of government, different departments, agencies, the RCMP and CSIS," Rae told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday.

Rae spoke a day after Ontario Lieutenant-Governor James Bartleman revealed he had received intelligence about the Air India bombing days before it occurred.

"We now hear from Mr. Bartleman about the Foreign Affairs situation, and that has really got to be of some great concern," Rae said. "If you go back to the 9/11 report, it talks about the silos between the FBI and the CIA and how certain information wasn't properly shared and I think, tragically, the Air India situation was a terrible precursor to that."

On June 23, 1985, Air India flight 182 exploded off the coast of Ireland, killing 307 passengers and 22 crew members.

CTV

This is another indication of how our government bureaucracy is incompetent. Turf fights are endemic.

This problem is far more severe in the Washington than in Ottawa.

[August1991]

The incidence of disability claims by federal public servants is at a 37-year-high, with women bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, according to federal government figures presented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

...

In his presentation, Mr. Infantino outlined three disability claim trends. One is an inexorable rise in the incidence of disability claims. Last year, 2,908 workers filed disability claims, a claim incidence of 13.54 per 1,000 plan members.

Mr. Infantino said the incidence of disability plan claims in the past three years is the highest it has been since its inception in 1970. "We've never seen disability incidence rates that high."

...

The nature of disability claims has also changed dramatically, he said. In 1991, 23.7 per cent of approved claims were for depression and/or anxiety. By last year, that had nearly doubled to 45.1 per cent.

"Almost one out of every two claims filed in the federal public service cites depression or anxiety as the primary disability," Mr. Infantino said.

"We're not talking about your blue Mondays. What we've got is people who've been off at least 13 weeks who say I cannot come to work because I am depressed and/or anxious, and I have certified medical evidence of that.

"That's quite disconcerting when you think of the number of claims filed for that particular reason."

Mr. Infantino said PSAC has no analysis of the reasons for these various disability trends. "There's been no real study as far as I know."

But he had "no doubt" that job stress due to overwork is a major contributing factor. Though public service staffing levels have partly recovered from the 1990s downsizing, "I still don't think we've recovered from program review," Mr. Infantino said.

Canwest

How can a civil servant suffer from stress? A stressed bureaucrat, isn't that an oxymoron?

This is what happens when you give someone access to other people's money and the other people (Canadian taxpayers) have "very deep pockets". It is so easy to simply approve the leave with pay on medical grounds. Several thousand dollars here or there, who's going to notice?

Paradoxically, claims fell sharply in the late 1990s, during a period when the federal government's sweeping program review downsized the public service by between 40,000 and 50,000 person years.

Mr. Infantino said the most probable explanation is that those likeliest to have filed disability claims during that period took buyouts or early retirement packages instead.

IOW, even more depressing (sorry) is the realization that Martin/Chretien's efforts to reduce government simply raised off-budget costs since they paid civil servants with buyouts to go away.

----

All of this means that our federal bureaucracy is incompetent and costly.

For example, above in this thread, I have noted examples of incompetence in the federal bureaucracy. No one ever gets fired. Instead, they declare that they are stressed and then they go on paid leave. IOW, we reward incompetence.

What kind of incentive system is that?

Edited November 6, 2007 by August1991

[capricorn]

How can a civil servant suffer from stress? A stressed bureaucrat, isn't that an oxymoron?

....

Paradoxically, claims fell sharply in the late 1990s, during a period when the federal government's sweeping program review downsized the public service by between 40,000 and 50,000 person years.

Mr. Infantino said the most probable explanation is that those likeliest to have filed disability claims during that period took buyouts or early retirement packages instead.

Another major reason claims fell during that period is that the employees were scared stiff of being declared surplus to requirements and given their pink slip. Therefore, they remained extremely healthy during that period.

IOW, even more depressing (sorry) is the realization that Martin/Chretien's efforts to reduce government simply raised off-budget costs since they paid civil servants with buyouts to go away.

And to depress you further August, in addition, under those two fine Liberals, the public service has grown back to almost the same pre-program review numbers. Some savings.

Instead, they declare that they are stressed and then they go on paid leave.

And once they have exhausted all their paid leave, they can transfer over to long term disability with Great West Life for up to 2 years. Then, managers hire temporary staff to fill in the gaps. Lovely system.

[August1991]

Another major reason claims fell during that period is that the employees were scared stiff of being declared surplus to requirements and given their pink slip.

Pink slip? When is a federal bureaucrat ever given a pink slip? Whatever happens, their pay will be deposited into their bank account every Thursday. It's the iron rice bowl.

Here's another irony. It is the civil service union (PSAC) that is publicising this survey. The union is telling the world that its members don't work! In the crazy world of Ottawa, the union thinks that this kind of publicity will get better conditions for its members! If it weren't the parallel universe of Ottawa, I'd admire the sheer chutzpah. It's like a real estate agent asking you to pay a larger commission because he hasn't been able to close a sale in the past six months.

Edited November 6, 2007 by August1991

[capricorn]

Pink slip? When is a federal bureaucrat ever given a pink slip?

There was a lot of angst among them at the time, especially what we call the "deadwood". Psychological perhaps but it did lead an increase in work attendance.

Here's another irony. It is the civil service union (PSAC) that is publicising this survey. The union is telling the world that its members don't work! In the crazy world of Ottawa, the union thinks that this kind of publicity will get better conditions for its members!

I have a feeling the PSAC's actions are a preamble to negotiations with Treasury Board. They'll probably ask for more leave provisions in the collective agreements, increased sick leave provisions perhaps.

[geoffrey]

So, essientially, the lazy entitled stereotype of a government work is... exactly true?

[Visionseeker]

No one can say the sentence 'Canada is a great country' without either lying or feeling akwarrd saying it.

Canada IS a great country! I feel neither dishonest nor awkward in saying this.

[Smallc]

Canada IS a great country! I feel neither dishonest nor awkward in saying this.

Canada is not only a great country, but an amazing one. I feel like I just made the most truthful statement that I will ever utter. I don't see how anyone who lives here can see things differently.

[August1991]

Canada is not only a great country, but an amazing one. I feel like I just made the most truthful statement that I will ever utter. I don't see how anyone who lives here can see things differently.

Canada and the Government of Canada are two entirely different things.

Now then, does the federal government and specifically the federal bureaucracy - given what they take from Canadians - contribute to making Canada a better place or not?

[Smallc]

Canada and the Government of Canada are two entirely different things.

Now then, does the federal government and specifically the federal bureaucracy - given what they take from Canadians - contribute to making Canada a better place or not?

Yeah they do. They administrate the programs that make this country great. They pass the legislation that helps keep this country safe. They provide the medical services that helps keep the people of the country alive.

[August1991]

Yeah they do. They administrate the programs that make this country great. They pass the legislation that helps keep this country safe. They provide the medical services that helps keep the people of the country alive.

How can you say that in the face of the various links and reports in this thread alone?

If Canada is a great country, it is because of ordinary Canadians who get up every morning and go to work, take care of their families and are civilized to one another. I happen to think that the federal bureaucracy is more of a burden and hindrance to them than a help.

And BTW, the health system that you refer to is a provincial jurisdiction.

Edited November 7, 2007 by August1991

[Smallc]

How can you say that in the face of the various links and reports in this thread alone?

If Canada is a great country, it is because of ordinary Canadians who get up every morning and go to work, take care of their families and are civilized to one another. I happen to think that the federal bureaucracy is more of a burden and hindrance to them than a help.

And BTW, the health system that you refer to is a provincial jurisdiction.

None of the systems could function without the Federal government, no matter the Jurisdiction. Do you forget the the government is made up of regular people that get up and go to work every day? They are not a hinderance and they do very good work for Canadians. Its all about perspective and scale.

[no queenslave]

Yeah they do. They administrate the programs that make this country great. They pass the legislation that helps keep this country safe. They provide the medical services that helps keep the people of the country alive.

how much is the government paying you to promote propaganda?

federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control

[Visionseeker]

The days of civil servants as punch-card counters, light-bulb changers and typing pools are well behind us. Technology has largely made unskilled or lesser-skilled employment obsolete in government. Cafeteria workers, typists, messengers, janitors and other facilities related positions have been privatized or gone the way of the doo-doo.

What largely remains in the civil service is skill-requisite, knowledge demanding positions. Even government call-centres demand a broad measure of knowledge and capabilities in order to fulfill their mandates.

The Treasury Board study might easily be seen as reinforcing public stereotypes of civil servants, but even if one is tempted to see it that way; its results speak to the alleged problem of “lazy civil servants” getting remarkably worse. That would be the “easy” explanation, but as with most facile solutions, it is wrong.

The stress leave behaviours of federal public servants (which I would put money on their repetition at provincial and municipal levels) are born from the employer’s penchant for integrating administrative and technological efficiencies without addressing public expectations of product delivery. This penchant stemmed from too many people rising above their level of competence because Conservative cuts of middle managers and subsequent Liberal buy-outs based on age gave us a public service with non-coms trying to speak to the general staff with the inevitable and expected results.

Rather than listen to the non-coms, the solution to this disconnect was to higher private and unaccountable actors to mediate and interpret public needs with marvelous models and techno-savvy twits who would have us all believe that people love telemessages and that seniors would embrace the Internet if we told them that that’s where the can get info on their pension benefits.

The problem with the civil service is that too many people in the ranks just can’t take this stupidity. They are educated, capable and driven. Yet the upper-crust that “survived” the “decade of darkness” are filled with inept careerists who never managed to understand that there is a forest, and that it is comprised of trees.

[Smallc]

how much is the government paying you to promote propaganda?

federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control

Nothing. When I was 13 I started watching Politics, with on Newman and Primetime Politics with Peter Van Dusen. I fell in love with government and politics. When you understand that the government has an entire country to look after and that its not about me but the greater good, you begin to become much more understanding about why the policies that you personally may think are stupid are in fact necessary.

[August1991]

The problem with the civil service is that too many people in the ranks just can’t take this stupidity. They are educated, capable and driven. Yet the upper-crust that “survived” the “decade of darkness” are filled with inept careerists who never managed to understand that there is a forest, and that it is comprised of trees.

So we're back to the Argus argument that "the tree dies from the top" or "the fish dies from the head".

Visionseeker, if you want to believe that "civil servants are highly skilled knowledge workers", go ahead. But you'd be blind to the serious problems within this thing we call "modern government".

Whatever the political party in power in the past 80 years or so, government has gotten larger as measured by how much it takes of all goods and services produced. There are more civil servants and they are accomplishing less and less.

[Argus]

So we're back to the Argus argument that "the tree dies from the top" or "the fish dies from the head".

It's called "Speaking from experience" August. You ought to try some day.

Visionseeker, if you want to believe that "civil servants are highly skilled knowledge workers", go ahead. But you'd be blind to the serious problems within this thing we call "modern government".

Administering programs and policies is an extremely complicated business. Government processes, computer and information systems are all quite complex and require quite a bit of training. You can't be a good clerk with a calculator and a pencil any more, you know. You need intensive knowledge of a number of software systems and the kinds of complex policies and procedures all large organizations have at hand.

Whatever the political party in power in the past 80 years or so, government has gotten larger as measured by how much it takes of all goods and services produced. There are more civil servants and they are accomplishing less and less.

I'll agree with this. From my perspective, at least. What I used to accomplish in ten minutes a few years back can now take weaks, sometimes months. The sponsorship scandal has brought about a fetish for oversight at all levels of government which has become hugely expensive and time consuming, and a growing drain on resources.

Example: A new manager needed a temp worker. He was in administration years back, so he simply did what he did then - he called a temp agency and had someone there next day.

Horrors! That was the way things USED to be! You can't do that any more! The proper forms weren't filled out and sent to the proper purchasing office. Requisitions weren't put in place, bids were not solicited from multiple agencies so that best-value judgements could be made, interviews weren't done. This oversight on his part will wind up going all the way up to the deputy minister level and involve weeks of explanations and reports by him, his manager, the director general, the assistant commisioner and more.

Of course, he got a temp worker in one day where it now usually takes weeks of work, arguments over statement of work, hounding of contracting officers, rewording of security certificates, etc.

The new culture of oversight means managers, directors, etc. are putting in place processes to very closely watch and oversee every element of spending. But with little eye to efficiency, much less cost efficiency. If it costs $100 in work to oversee the purchase of a $1 item, then so be it. The culture of oversight does not care. The higher ups are terrified someone will audit them and find they didn't provide the proper oversight, so that's all they now care about. Worse, in this new culture, it is these narrow minded bean counters who are being promoted to higher and higher ranks, driving the real workers into frustration with their ever more complicated processes for accomplishing simple tasks.

I was just talking to a friend in another branch. He did a little unofficial cost analyses and found his branch are spending twice as much on the task of overseeing the use of and paying for their cell phone bills than the cell phone service itself costs.

Cell phone service: $20,000

Cost of making sure those cell phones are not being used for personal phone calls $40,000

That's the new government - coming from the top.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Argus

[August1991]

From my perspective, at least. What I used to accomplish in ten minutes a few years back can now take weaks, sometimes months. The sponsorship scandal has brought about a fetish for oversight at all levels of government which has become hugely expensive and time consuming, and a growing drain on resources.

Is this the only problem? How about this in the UK?

Britain's tax office says it has lost two computer disks containing banking and personal data on 25 million people.

Officials say the data was on two computer disks sent to a government audit office through an internal mail service. Treasury chief Alistair Darling says the delivery was not being tracked and the disks were missing for three weeks before an alarm was raised.

The disks contain details of 25 million people in 7.5 million families that receive child welfare benefits.

The information includes the names and address of parents and children, dates of birth, national insurance numbers and banking details.

CP

----

We concentrate power in government, and then we also disconnect this government power from the real world of money. That's a recipe for disaster as smart people in the 18th century already surmised.

We will soon pay in higher taxes/greater debt for the incompetence of UK bureaucrats. Why? Because our bureaucrats will take measures to ensure themselves against a similar UK mistake. And we'll pay. Such is government. Bureaucrats spend other people's money and no one really knows how to control them. They can spend our money to protect themselves and make it appear that they are protecting us.

Yet, as the UK example above shows, they don't even protect us. Why? We pay money (taxes) disconnected from what we want (government services).

Edited November 23, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I bookmarked this thread a week ago, and have been trying to get to it ever since. This is one of the best threads I've read. Thanks MapleLeafWeb.

My comments:

The Problem:

"Bad service from Service Canada."

"Good people at the top are leaving because it has become too political."

"decade of darkness"

"Listless, unmotivated workers."

"Disorganization, or excessive oversight."

"Stress leave." ( Yes, Auguste, the front line workers can and do feel the stress from these huge bureaucratic battles and turf wars. Good people have nervous breakdowns. It's a sad waste of talent. )

"No competition."

"Fish dies from the head."

My answer:

The situation we're all describing here is understandable, if you look at the structure of the civil service, and its setting within the political information infrastructure we have in Canada.

Over years, each of the stakeholders has drifted towards their own interests.

Luckily, I have the answer. I will post it here later.

On the topic of workers vs. management.

If an organization is not working, blame ultimately rests with management. It may not be their "fault", however they are the leaders.

WAL MART and McDonalds seem to be able to deliver to clients' expectations without "overpaid and overeducated" (as they're described here) workers.

But to blame managers isn't entirely the problem either. A lot of the problems of bureaucracy exist in the banking system as well, but in business money has the final say. The civil service is supposed to serve the public, but in fact has two masters - the public, and the minister in charge.

Believe me, I have worked with the government, with several banks, and dozens of businesses in my career. The best organizations have the best people at the very top: organized, priority based and empathetic leaders can mobilize their organizations to excellence and are worth their money.

I will post my solution to this problem here later.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Michael Hardner