Our Incompetent Federal Bureaucracy

[Michael Hardner]

So, the solution to our problems is a difficult thing to determine. There is nothing with the same scale of complexity as running a government.

I would say that the root cause of our problems is that the system of government we designed is not the one being used today.

For example, the system of government that was designed had, as it's central nervous system, an informed public that used interactive media and townhalls to debate and discuss issues in order to determine a best solution.

It would be impossible for our society to mirror such a thing under the present circumstances.

As such, our central nervous system has disappeared, and instead we use the central nervous system that everyone is familiar with: the business marketing system via mass-communications.

I wanted to mention the root cause, however I should point out that even if we were able to rectify the slow decline of our governmental communications systems within a quick time frame, it would take a long time for reforms to make their way through the system.

---

The specific problems mentioned, with regards to the federal bureaucracy are an extension of the problems that the business world faces all the time. The difference is that the business world has a clear motivation - to make money - and, with some qualifications, if the leaders do not achieve that goal they can lose their positions.

With regards to government services, the closest thing to motivation that they have is to get the current government re-elected. This is a more difficult thing for the people at the top to manage. What ends up happening is that the government's appearance in the public eye is of paramount importance. Managing appearances becomes the priority work for top executives at the civil service.

So, problems that are highly visible tend to be prioritized, and problems that, while real, do not grab headlines tend to be left to fester. Sleeping dogs lie, and the little things are neglected.

The problem, then, is us. The public 'votes' for businesses when it buys things, and therefore poorly managed businesses, lose favour and fail. But the government won't pay attention to anything that we, the voters, don't pay attention to.

On another forum, I did some research into how much data on healthcare system performance exists on the web for public consumption. There is precious little, and what is there is hard to find, and hard to analyze when it is found. How, then, are we supposed to evaluate our healthcare systems ?

I think the solution to the problem is to design the complexity of these systems to match the ability of the public to evaluate and direct the delivery of services, and vice versa.

For example, Service Canada should separate the delivery of services - say, EI or tax services - from the political arm of government and make it independent. They should have an appointed CEO who is in charge of expenses and service delivery, who reports to all all-party commons committee.

The minister can still enact change within the department, but the department needs to be focussed on service delivery, and not on helping the boss (i.e. the minister) get re-elected. Is it really the fault of the current sitting minister - a politician - if there's a problem with the income tax system this year ? Probably not.

Please note that I have many years of experience with large organizations, and I understand how the cultures of such entities work from the top down.

I realize that I haven't sourced my opinions (no time) on certain things here, but I sincerely believe that my solution is better than some of the gambits I have read on these boards, including:

- PR (Having 10 green party MPs in the house, and perpetual minority governments will save Canada, don't you know ?)

- Getting rid of the constitution, rewriting it, becoming a republic (minor changes)

- Electing, or (even better) getting rid of the senate

- Eliminating all income tax

[no queenslave]

So, the solution to our problems is a difficult thing to determine. There is nothing with the same scale of complexity as running a government.

I would say that the root cause of our problems is that the system of government we designed is not the one being used today.

For example, the system of government that was designed had, as it's central nervous system, an informed public that used interactive media and townhalls to debate and discuss issues in order to determine a best solution.

It would be impossible for our society to mirror such a thing under the present circumstances.

As such, our central nervous system has disappeared, and instead we use the central nervous system that everyone is familiar with: the business marketing system via mass-communications.

I wanted to mention the root cause, however I should point out that even if we were able to rectify the slow decline of our governmental communications systems within a quick time frame, it would take a long time for reforms to make their way through the system.

---

The specific problems mentioned, with regards to the federal bureaucracy are an extension of the problems that the business world faces all the time. The difference is that the business world has a clear motivation - to make money - and, with some qualifications, if the leaders do not achieve that goal they can lose their positions.

With regards to government services, the closest thing to motivation that they have is to get the current government re-elected. This is a more difficult thing for the people at the top to manage. What ends up happening is that the government's appearance in the public eye is of paramount importance. Managing appearances becomes the priority work for top executives at the civil service.

So, problems that are highly visible tend to be prioritized, and problems that, while real, do not grab headlines tend to be left to fester. Sleeping dogs lie, and the little things are neglected.

The problem, then, is us. The public 'votes' for businesses when it buys things, and therefore poorly managed businesses, lose favour and fail. But the government won't pay attention to anything that we, the voters, don't pay attention to.

On another forum, I did some research into how much data on healthcare system performance exists on the web for public consumption. There is precious little, and what is there is hard to find, and hard to analyze when it is found. How, then, are we supposed to evaluate our healthcare systems ?

I think the solution to the problem is to design the complexity of these systems to match the ability of the public to evaluate and direct the delivery of services, and vice versa.

For example, Service Canada should separate the delivery of services - say, EI or tax services - from the political arm of government and make it independent. They should have an appointed CEO who is in charge of expenses and service delivery, who reports to all all-party commons committee.

The minister can still enact change within the department, but the department needs to be focussed on service delivery, and not on helping the boss (i.e. the minister) get re-elected. Is it really the fault of the current sitting minister - a politician - if there's a problem with the income tax system this year ? Probably not.

Please note that I have many years of experience with large organizations, and I understand how the cultures of such entities work from the top down.

I realize that I haven't sourced my opinions (no time) on certain things here, but I sincerely believe that my solution is better than some of the gambits I have read on these boards, including:

- PR (Having 10 green party MPs in the house, and perpetual minority governments will save Canada, don't you know ?)

- Getting rid of the constitution, rewriting it, becoming a republic (minor changes)

- Electing, or (even better) getting rid of the senate

- Eliminating all income tax

after telling us the system you designed is not being used ; you go on to tell us you now have the answers; but think no one else has.

You don't even want to post the legal definition of a democracy ; because that is not what you want. With all your claimed experience of how you think things work ; you still dont understand Canada does not have a democratic government with a constitution ratified by the people; as to what the people want. You just want another form of a dictatorship;because you think the people should have no say as to what they want in a constitution , to limit the powers of government.

!. Do you understand that first you must have free and sovereign people; before you can have a democratic government?

2.Do you understand In a democracy the people are sovereign and give power to their government ; power from the bottom up.

3 . Do you understand that when people like you insist on creating power from the top down it is a form of dictatorship ?

If People in Venezuela can buy gas at .04 a L and we have to pay $1.04 ;who is making all the money. The people you elect have very little control as to what they want to do; just puppets in a fraud game who swear to obey the queen and her laws. A fake democracy where you are given a choice of which puppet you can elect , who will not represent you in Ottawa..The only reason we have federal income tax is because slave labor is not in ; but financial slavery is the new practice.

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

[Michael Hardner]

I already talked about your issue in another thread, and I'm not interested in discussing it further.

Thanks all the same.

[no queenslave]

I already talked about your issue in another thread, and I'm not interested in discussing it further.

Thanks all the same.

you have no answers but government propaganda; and you think it is so complicated.

It is not Complicated at all ; sovereign people create a constitution that they want; and only give the government only the powers they want the government to have. Then the government has only to follow the rules , and do only what the people want their government to do.

Just ,like government posters you are not interested in discussing it because you have no valid answers.

QUOTE "The Queen pays me to post.... I am not going to take any position contrary to the one I'm paid to take" by jbg

At least he admitted it . Others are just wimps.

If the government got out of the federal personal income tax scam how many of thous uncontrollable stressed government bureaucrats could stay home ;at a great saving to the people of Canada?.

Edited December 4, 2007 by no queenslave

[Michael Hardner]

One thing I'm absolutely convinced of is that new media will adapt to politics, and eventually take a prominent role in our political systems.

Blogs are not the best use of new media, interactive forums like Maple Leaf are better.

An interactive forum could serve as a souped-up alternative to private-enterprise-journalism, keeping government in check.

What advantages would it have ?

1 ) People tend to do things better when they're volunteering.

2 ) A forum has fewer points of failure than a journalistic piece authored by a single person.

3 ) Forums bring a breadth of political beliefs, experience, and general knowledge.

4 ) They are closer to the people than newspapers are.

5 ) They react more quickly than newspapers.

6 ) They provide answers to individual questions, interactively.

7 ) They can provide more depth than television.

[M.Dancer]

government in check.

What advantages would it have ?

What disadvantages would it have?

easily manipulated by pressure groups feeding unverfied info for mass consumtion.

written by amatuers with causes to espouce rather that professionals whose craft is story telling

Lack of fact checkers

Populated by people who are intent on meeting others who believe in UFOs, JFK conspiracies and that Bush masterminded 9/11

....95% of the time they rely on traditional media anyway so for the most part it regurgitates what is already out there.

The amateurs will never supplant traditional media mainly because 99% of the stuff written by amateurs is boring, ill written and narrowly focused. Mainstream media will always get the lion share of readers because their craft is to tell stories in a captivating fashion and to tell them in the most even handed fashion available.

[M.Dancer]

One thing I'm absolutely convinced of is that new media will adapt to politics, and eventually take a prominent role in our political systems.

Blogs are not the best use of new media, interactive forums like Maple Leaf are better.

An interactive forum could serve as a souped-up alternative to private-enterprise-journalism, keeping government in check.

What advantages would it have ?

2 ) A forum has fewer points of failure than a journalistic piece authored by a single person.

That's a false assumption. Consider the points of failure that Leafless and Mikedavid manage on a daily basis and multiply that by an n^th degree. What is more, larger papers and broadcasters never have only one person on the story even though you may only see one by-line.

A senior writer will have her assitants making calls and gathering quotes and making more calls to confirm quotes. A fact checker will double check any numbers, names dates or places mentioned and often in magazines like Macleans jst about all important stories ar vetted by the legal department. And on top of that a managing editor and perhaps an executive will be involved from concept to press while a copy editor will make double sure widows/orphans, dnagling particples, split infinitive and mixed metaphors are left behind.

What you are holding as a model would be similar to a craft sale selling homemade clay plates and claiming they are superior to Wedgewood.

[Michael Hardner]

What disadvantages would it have?

easily manipulated by pressure groups feeding unverfied info for mass consumtion.

In one sense, you're absolutely correct.

New media is always susceptible to misuse by upstarts. The Nazis used radio and film masterfully, and made the old guard look.... old.

However, a forum is used by a lot of people equally, so it would be difficult to manufacture a mass fraud, such as anonymous acceptance by Maple Leaf Web posters, for example.

written by amatuers with causes to espouce rather that professionals whose craft is story telling

Who is better at writing a story - Christy Blatchford or Leafless ?

Ok. Bad example.

How about Morris Dancer or Joey Slinger ? I'd rather read Morris or Scott, even though I'm liable to be disgusted, infuriated or alarmed. But with Slinger, I will only be bored.

Lack of fact checkers

We piggy back on other media for facts.

Anyway, if I read an incorrect fact in the Star, I won't know it unless I buy tomorrow's issue and look for the corrections column. If I misquote an immigration statistic, one of my opponents here will catch it within minutes.

Populated by people who are intent on meeting others who believe in UFOs, JFK conspiracies and that Bush masterminded 9/11

But also populated by people who haven't been writing the same copy for 30 years. There will always be some stones mixed in with the wheat.

....95% of the time they rely on traditional media anyway so for the most part it regurgitates what is already out there.

But that 5% includes some real gems. I read things on these boards that I would not find in the mainstream press, and not just because it would contravene Canada's Charter of Rights to publish them.

The amateurs will never supplant traditional media mainly because 99% of the stuff written by amateurs is boring, ill written and narrowly focused. Mainstream media will always get the lion share of readers because their craft is to tell stories in a captivating fashion and to tell them in the most even handed fashion available.

Exactly right, except... wrong.

The mainstream press isn't losing to one website, it's losing to hundreds of them. The copy may be boring, ill written, and so forth but it's interactive.

There's still room for mainstream media, but the bridge to the public needs to be there.

[Michael Hardner]

That's a false assumption. Consider the points of failure that Leafless and Mikedavid manage on a daily basis and multiply that by an nth degree. What is more, larger papers and broadcasters never have only one person on the story even though you may only see one by-line.

A senior writer will have her assitants making calls and gathering quotes and making more calls to confirm quotes. A fact checker will double check any numbers, names dates or places mentioned and often in magazines like Macleans jst about all important stories ar vetted by the legal department. And on top of that a managing editor and perhaps an executive will be involved from concept to press while a copy editor will make double sure widows/orphans, dnagling particples, split infinitive and mixed metaphors are left behind.

What you are holding as a model would be similar to a craft sale selling homemade clay plates and claiming they are superior to Wedgewood.

Morris,

I think the time lag for magazines will help them, with regards to competing with the web. Nobody really expects today's news to show up in tomorrow's magazine.

Newspapers, though, with their 8-16 hour time lag have an odd time window.

Wedgewood is great, but most people don't use Wedgewood.

The other point I'd like to make is that I'm addressing the suitability of new media to our political information systems, in the face of cynical and faded popularity of the banal and struggling 'old media', especially television.

I don't think magazines, newspapers, or television will or should disappear any more than radio did when television appeared, or when FM radio took off. Media adapts.

When television appeared, radio turned away from dramas and comedies, and played music for teenagers, and rock n roll was born. Rock n roll couldn't have happened in the forties because the audience for it didn't warrant the bandwidth. When FM appeared, radio adapted to all-talk and all-sports format (remember Toronto's radio station for guys ?) creating the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon.

Web communication is less centralized, more idea and writing based, and as such is the best match to the media for which democracy was designed - the 'press' of the 18th century.

[August1991]

Not only are government bureaucrats incompetent, they're also "stressed out":

Bill Wilkerson, chairman of the Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health, said the absenteeism, disability claims and distress among Canada's nurses, doctors, teachers, police, military and bureaucrats have reached such crisis proportions that it's time for a major study into what is "sabotaging taxpayers' investment" into these critical services.

"We are seeing absences, disability rates and illness among public sector organizations that beg a national evaluation of what it is about these workplaces that creates such high levels of distress," he said.

Ottawa Citizen

I see a connection. When people live in a bizarre, artificial environment where risk has been removed, where a pay cheque is deposited every Wednesday into an account, regardless of any malfeasance - when people live with an Iron Rice Bowl paid by others - then people go bonkers. They begin to suffer all manner of manias.

Without risk, humans become manic and obsessive.

It also seems to me that government employment encourages bullies. Why? Bullies are not popular in voluntary relations - if you can choose, would you choose to deal with a bully? Most government relations are involuntary relations.

When dealing with government employees, as citizens or as another employee, voluntary is not the usual description of the relationship. In government, you're stuck with whomever another bureaucrat assigned. You can't cross the street.

One of the reasons that I left government service was that I was tired of dealing with bullies. The civil service attracts bullies because bullies cannot operate where there is free choice.

[Michael Hardner]

To add to your points:

- Spending a lot of your life being unproductive is bad for you, in my experience.

- There are bullies who have to put up with each other because they can't work elsewhere.