The Gatekeepers

In this day-and-age of division and upset, it’s easy to forget that every opinion in support of, or in opposition to, or even in neutrality comes from a unique perspective. It has many influences, most notably lived experience. Although I have an ability to make decisions and move on, I will revisit some of those decisions from time-to-time to question if I had the full perspective.

I don’t know exactly how to approach this subject without some taking offence. But I have always believed in discussing things in order to achieve a better understanding. And I feel it’s important to say that my thoughts come from my perspective.

There are lots of gatekeepers. Some are political; others are not typically political but still have a political make-up of sorts. There are always back-ground strategies at work and often times, the political figures are the last to know.

It’s lengthy, but here I go.

I want to talk about the gatekeepers of government, the civil service. In particular, the senior civil service.

It can’t be easy. Smart people who know they are tasked with implementing government direction, whether they agree with it or not. Delivering options for government to choose from. Individuals who all have opinions, insight and lived-experience by which to delineate information and offer the options they think best…..the options they think best.

New governments, especially, must rely on the senior civil service. All the approved information new members get will flow from their hierarchy. And that information will only be conveyed IF it is felt applicable to a new government’s agenda. Also, any information in a department could be at the Minister’s disposal but only if the Minister specifically asks for it, or it applies to their initiatives. Otherwise, it’s forgotten; tucked away until it’s asked for OR until an ugly issue arises and it needs to be addressed.

It hasn’t helped that we have now had 5 different political governments since 2006. Up until then, (for nearly 100 years) we had never had a one-term or short-term government. Now, two-term governments feel like they are pipe dream. And the civil service is thrown into a loop of preparing, planning and executing for, likely, “another” short run.

Departments will always give their advice or perspective on who a Minister should meet with and as importantly, who they discourage a Minister for making the time for. But I will say, when a Minister decides, one way or another, the briefing notes from the department’s perspective is always available.

It’s also my perspective that there is a particular flaw in our political system whereby it is almost unheard of that a new government will “chat” with the old government to gather further perspective.

In fact, there is legislation that keeps a former member of government under embargo from approaching the government-of-the-day for a period of twelve months. And with election results flipping, essentially, every four years, the civil service starts their process over at the beginning of every government.

That’s why we see Minister tours followed by “what we heard” reports, then come recommendations and, before you know it, a year has passed, and a lot of meaningful work hasn’t really begun. 25% of the mandate is gone and options are just being discussed or solidified. Ministers are caught trying to convey confidence that they are doing the work necessary before implementation when the Opposition or public start looking for answers and actions. Then, the two and third year of a mandate is gone in a blink, and governments are making announcements to frame what has or will be happening to deliver their vision. All this time, the civil service knows that if a new government happens, they will just start all over and another twelve to eighteen months is lost again. It’s no wonder advocates cannot fully buy into government initiatives. They have seen too many come and go.

Don’t get me wrong. I defend process. IT truly is what protects the civil service and the politicians. But if the information is already there maybe the civil service should dig into it, offer full transparency to the government-of-the-day and move on. We are so conditioned to thinking that the previous government just didn’t get it right, we forget that maybe the way daily government business is conducted could be a big part of the problem.

If you haven’t read the New Brunswick Child, Youth and Seniors’ Advocate, How It All Broke: (March 10, 2024) and other installments, I highly recommend it. Here is an excerpt from page four:

“There are reasons why too many seniors languish in hospital beds. The reasons are often similar to why too many social assistance recipients are still living in poverty after years, why nearly half of children going to school cannot read, and why a growing number of people living in New Brunswick are experiencing homelessness. There are reasons why too many seniors are forced into institutional care rather than supported in staying at home. These reasons are often similar to the reasons why too many children in care wind up homeless, why too many children with special needs become adults on social assistance, and why the criminal justice system and the family courts are overwhelmed”.

“There are reasons why nursing homes and special care homes struggle to find qualified staff to ensure that seniors can have a high quality of life. Many of these reasons are the same as the reasons why parents are passing up jobs due to a lack of childcare, why youth mental health crises presenting at hospitals are at record highs, and why critically ill people are suffering in hospital waiting rooms.”

I have also been reading New Brunswick Health Plans going back to 2004. It is incredible that one-after-the-other talks about patient-centered care, primary care access, prioritize the recruitment and retention of skilled health-care professionals, reduce surgical wait times, etc. There wasn’t one Premier’s message or Minister’s message that didn’t convey hope for fixing the systems, and if we worked together, we could make it happen. Investments increased. But after twenty-plus years, the challenges are still so very similar. The wording in all those plans is eerily similar and, certainly, some accomplishments have been achieved. But after twenty years, we are not much closer to stability or achieving the human resources we need to achieve stability.

There isn’t any one reason. But one of the things no one wants to talk about is that, in my opinion, the senior civil service needs a reset. A reset to offer them the ability to reform their approaches. A reset to be innovative and achieve greater satisfaction for implementing visionary reform. A reset to explore all the external options that might definitely shake up the status quo but deliver better outcomes for the people they serve. A reset to be less risk averse and more focused on empowering innovation for better outcomes.

From my perspective, I think the rotation of governments has changed the civil service and how they operate. My experience is there does not appear to be any long-term vision or urgency for change. Proposed solutions are short-sighted and rarely hit-the-nail-on-the-head. The civil service is strongly rooted in protectionism, and they do not want to upset their apple cart. Departmental collaboration isn’t any where near where it needs to be and, no matter how much departments say they are collaborating with other departments and the RHAs, it is not happening to create a level of efficiency and better outcomes for patients / clients / families. “Working towards” is not “achieving”. And ‘not achieving’ is costing dignity and better outcomes for the people of our province.

I believe if we do not consider to work differently, our outcomes will not change.

What if Child Protection Social Workers had their offices in schools, community centers and shelters where they can connect with families before a crisis evolves.

What if senior care experts from Social Development actually worked on the floors of the hospital. Assessments and discharge planning for seniors and families could begin the day of admission.

 Why do senior assessments and files need to close if the family does not have immediate or continuing direct services from a department? Why can’t they live on and simply be pulled when needed (like medical files)?

For the public, many policies do not make sense and only serve to the department to say they “opened” and “closed” a certain number of files each month / year. It doesn’t say what the outcomes have been and how families have been better served.

Our systems need to go from implementing policy to measuring outcomes…and not outcomes for the departments, but for citizens; seniors, children, families. I have always maintained that when front-line workers can achieve better outcomes for the clients / patients / families they serve, there will be greater job satisfaction and incentive to stay. 

Now that I’ve said all this, I do want to make one thing very clear. There are many, many civil servants I have met and worked with that I have great respect for. But somewhere along these years, we have lost sight of urgency and of measurable outcomes for the people we served. Those who want the same things will, hopefully, see my comments as a call to action for them to use their power and expertise to do more than take baby steps. Government cannot exist and work without the help of the civil service. I pray that baby steps transition to bold and ambitious objectives that truly achieve the outcomes they want to create and a vision that government-after-government has aspired to achieve.