The recent New Brunswick election has motivated some reflection.

My cynical side says that we are, by Einstein’s definition, insane. We cannot continue to repeat the same behaviour and expect a different result.

'Issues in the New Brunswick government run deeper than with the politicians alone. Systemic problems extend, unfortunately, to the public service.

More people need to demand change in the business of politicking and governance. We continue to be frustrated by the behaviour of politicians, whether it be making irresponsible promises for political advantage (to be broken when reality hits), or childish bickering and posturing in the legislature.

It seems that the consequence of kicking out a Conservative government and replacing it with a Liberal one (or vice versa) every four years is not doing the trick. It is but a minor victory that we have managed to limit the last two regimes to single terms in office.

The behaviours show no sign of changing. We have a new administration, however, and that creates an opportunity for positive change.

One major problem is that issues in the New Brunswick government run deeper than with the politicians alone. Systemic problems extend, unfortunately, to the public service.

As a former public servant, I was witness to political self-serving, parochial, short-term decision making that was not in the best interest of the people of New Brunswick.

Unfortunately, we have been moving backward and not forward. The degree of politicization of the public service has increased substantially in the last 25 years.

I was witness to political self-serving, parochial, short-term decision making that was not in the best interest of the people of New Brunswick.

Those positions where people were once expected to advise ministers of the pros and cons of decisions have, to a greater degree, been filled with people who would ask the minister … “and how high should I jump?”

The working culture in government, more so than in past decades, discourages and marginalizes staff who would speak their mind as advocates of the broad public interest. I witnessed this decline in professionalism gain momentum under former premier Frank McKenna.

Deputy ministers (DM) have always been politically appointed but, for the most part, they were qualified people. That has changed since former premier Richard Hatfield (gasp, he wasn’t all bad). The DM, in turn, appoint without competition, people to senior positions such as assistant deputy minister (ADM) and executive director (ED).

There had been a steady increase in political appointments at the DM, ADM and ED levels. Such decisions shock and discourage the rank and file.

In the meantime, at lower levels politicians used to stay away, for the most part, from interfering in competitions for hiring and promotions of permanent professional staff. That changed drastically during the Bernard Lord regime (they made hiring interference an art form), but it didn’t slow down thereafter with Shawn Graham. This tendency ramped up again with David Alward.

We have had both Liberal and Conservative regimes act to erode the professionalism of the public service in the last couple of decades.

So we have had both Liberal and Conservative regimes act to erode the professionalism of the public service in the last couple of decades. As a result, we have a lost generation when it comes to effective leadership within the public service.

Yes, there are some good people there, but the level of professionalism has declined considerably.

Is there a solution?

Why not start by enacting a process requiring senior executives to be vetted / screened / assessed prior to appointment to those highest paid publicly funded positions?

I do not propose a U.S. style hearing system which can bog down and, counter productively, further politicize the process. I propose a model like the one used in the UK. It is legislated that recruitment must be based on merit, and must be fair and open.

The principle of merit precludes ministerial choice from a short list, as a job must be offered to the one best possible candidate. We do have civil service laws in New Brunswick, but they have proven to be inadequate.

As an aside, “merit” means the appointment of the best available person: no one should be appointed to a job unless they are competent to do it and the job must be offered to the person who would do it best

‘Fair’ means there is no bias in the assessment of candidates. Selection processes must be objective, impartial, and applied consistently.

"Open” means that the job opportunities must be advertised publicly and potential candidates given reasonable access to information about the job and its requirements, and about the selection process.”

(Those three definitions are from Paun, A., J. Harris and I. Magee. 2013. Permanent secretary appointments and the role of ministers. Institute for Government.)

When I was a manager and had some oversight in staff recruitment, my colleagues in other jurisdictions were always shocked when I told them that we couldn’t finalize the hiring process until the minister’s executive assistant (a purely political function) approved the name of the person being hired.

I found it embarrassing because it made New Brunswick look hopelessly backwards.

The rationale was one of providing a heads up, but I had situations where I was told who to hire from the “eligibility list,” and it wasn’t the person the interview board determined to be best qualified.

To make an eligibility list, one has to be qualified, but the overriding principle should always be to hire the best.

Many departments now have a slough of poorly hired and appointed “politicos” that get shuffled from job to job and department to department. It is a disgrace.

Many departments now have a slough of poorly hired and appointed “politicos” that get shuffled from job to job and department to department. It is a disgrace.

Many of them are oblivious to their incompetence and they sour work environments via their uselessness, attached to self-important untouchability.

In my first 20 years or so of involvement in hiring dozens of staff, I had one instance of interference in hiring. In that case, I was sympathetic to the rationale as it benefited a worthy individual.

After the Lord regime came in, I quickly had five instances of interference. My complaint to my DM was received with a paternalistic “well, that is just the way it is.”

Maybe I was just lucky those first 20 years. Shortly after that I had enough, and took a $20 k/year pay cut to become a college instructor. It was the best move I ever made.

I like to think I got out with my mental health intact and my quality of life improved substantially. I also had some survivor guilt, though, and felt like the proverbial rat leaving the sinking ship.

Don’t worry. I am over it, but my concern for the welfare of the public service and the people of New Brunswick remains strong.

Can we eliminate indiscriminate appointments of the politically connected? Can we implement a process for recruiting and promoting senior executives, including DMs, based on a structured assessment of qualifications, suitability and past performance? Can we have an independent Civil Service Commission?

Believe me, we can save many millions of dollars, and improve efficiency and morale, by divesting ourselves from the political dead weight.

Can we eliminate a requirement for political approval of people to be hired and reinforce a principal objective to recruit the best and brightest? We have to put this third-world approach well behind us.

Governments are elected by the people to govern. It is not the place of public servants to govern, but to run the machinery of government and deliver services to the public.

I believe in a healthy tension and a mutual respect between those who are elected and public service employees. It is a public servant’s duty to act in the best interest of the people of the province. This includes giving advice which can often conflict with what a politician wants to hear.

If those who govern choose to ignore such advice, that is their prerogative. When a sycophantic culture becomes the norm, as I believe it has, then that does not bode well for politicians, public servants or the people of New Brunswick.

Will the Liberal party be willing to make those changes? Time will tell Based on past performance, they will not. I expect that the first move will be a shuffling of DMs (the notion that the “CEO” of a department should have expertise in the workings of a department was thrown out some time ago).

The deck chairs will thus be rearranged on the Titanic and the political appointments will start. I ask that it stop in order to save the public service Brian Gallant has a rare opportunity to start to make things right.

Here’s an interesting excerpt from Paun et al, 2013:

“It is easy to take for granted today that civil servants are appointed following a competitive recruitment process rather than on the basis of their political convictions or personal contacts. This has not always been the case.

“In 1854, Stafford Northcote and C.E Trevelyan bemoaned the inefficiency of the Civil Service and attributed much of this to the misuse of personal patronage for appointments.

“A career in the Civil Service was chiefly attractive, the authors argued, to ‘the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable’ and their appointment was determined by ‘the discretion with which the heads of departments, and others who are entrusted with the distribution of patronage, exercise that privilege.’

“To address this, the Civil Service Commission was established with responsibility for ensuring that entry to the service was on the grounds of merit, tested through open competitive examination. At this stage, the extensive ministerial role in making senior appointments was uncontested, but the principle of appointment on the basis of merit had been established and grew over subsequent decades.”

We have been stepping backwards to where the UK was in 1854. Enough is enough. It’s time to implement change before we become a full-fledged banana republic.