Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Memo listing departed staff at Vancouver city hall makes the rounds

February 7th, 2011 · 39 Comments

Someone has been emailing this doc to bloggers here, there and everywhere.

Due to a technical glitch, I can’t put up the PDF I got, but it’s the same thing as here on the Citycaucus blog. This is in response to city manager Penny Ballem’s recent memo, which detailed the rate of staff turnover to show that staff aren’t leaving in droves. That seems to have stirred up a hornet’s nest inside city hall.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • spartikus

    “Were the retirements intended” says the author.

    Perhaps someone could ask? Retirees being free to give their opinion and all.

  • Michael Geller

    I will comment on this because the deteriorating staff morale at City Hall is one of my two greatest concerns with the current adminstration. (The handling of the OV, especially the social housing, is the other.)

    I do not pretend to be close to many people inside City Hall. However, I have been consistently approached by a number of people who have left the City, and people who are still working there, expressing concern about what is essentially the politicizing of the civil service.

    Now some may say,” What’s wrong with that? After all, we elected the Mayor and Council to bring in new policies and a new approach.

    It is the politicians’ responsibility to direct staff, not staff’s responsibility to direct the politicians.

    If staff don’t like the new political direction, they should leave.”

    While I appreciate that this is often the norm at the Federal and Provincial levels, when it comes to those working in political offices, and at the Deputy Minister and ADM level, this has not been the norm in municipal government.

    Indeed, if one looks at the past decades, while we witnessed different political direction at the top, we didn’t see the significant changes in senior staff that has happened over the past two years.

    I am concerned that there is now a toxic environment at the Hall. Many responsible people have become angered and confused by the changes in policy and direction, and really don’t know how to respond. They are doing what they are told to do…not what they believe is right.

    Yes, they can leave…but after working there for many years, and dependent on a pension, they are not always in a position to do so.

    I do hope this recent memo will serve as a signal to the Mayor and Council and senior management that something needs to be done. Because it is not just affecting those who work at City Hall. It is affecting those of us who work and live in the city.

  • David Hadaway

    @ Spartikus

    Retirees leaving with a full pension might feel free to express an opinion if they were unconcerned about being embroiled in controversy. However in other cases the use of gagging clauses ensures that the the public is kept ignorant of many important facts, which to me is completely unacceptable given that it is taxpayer money being used for these avoidable payoffs.

    The hypocrisy of the current administration’s repeated promises of ‘transparency’ is obvious, I wonder if the NPA would commit to both giving up such clauses in future and releasing those bound by them in the past.

  • Jason

    I’m even more worried about who’s replacing these people than the losses themselves.

    Are the replacements as competent as those they are replacing? And more importantly, were they hired due to their “loyalty” to Vision and the parties ideas, or were they hired because of their skills, and with the understanding that they are to act in a non-political/apolitical way when caring out their duties.

    If Vision loses the next election, and the staff WERE hired for political reasons, then we may see another whole round of people leaving during the next administration as well.

    Not good for the citizens of Vancouver.

  • sv

    Forget competent-what if the new hires are some first wave of alien invaders? Or maybe foreign sleeper agents? I mean they could be.

  • IanS

    I think Jason makes a good point.

    Perhaps Vision is of the view that the high turnover is a good thing and that they are putting more effective people into the roles vacated by those who are leaving.

  • Mark Allerton

    Lest we forget, here’s NPA candidate Bill McCreery’s take on the importance of the Corporate Management Team to the functioning of the City:

    ‘Who is the “Corporate Management Team”? Is this something to do with the City? When did the City of Vancouver become a ‘corporation”?’

    http://francesbula.com/city-hall-talk/new-vancouver-city-hall-rule-staff-should-be-seen-but-not-heard/#comment-55812

  • neil

    From what I hear from insiders is that a large number of the “disappeared” have been hired back by their departments as consultants, at suitably inflated rates.

  • spartikus

    Retirees leaving with a full pension might feel free to express an opinion if they were unconcerned about being embroiled in controversy.

    It doesn’t hurt to ask. So…anyone made an attempt?

    @Mark

    Ouch.

  • IanS

    @Mark #7,

    How does Bill’s objection to the characterization of the top management as being “corporate” in nature have anything to do with this?

    Are you suggesting that Bill’s position is that these individuals are not important to the functioning of the City?

    If so, do you have anything to support that suggestion? The post you linked do doesn’t say that. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Ian

    My point is (and was, when I responded to that comment at the time) that it is a sad state of affairs when the most vocal candidate for the opposition appears to be completely unaware of the functional structure of the organization they are aiming to run, to the point of being unaware that a municipality is a “corporation”.

  • Mark Allerton

    …And therefore it becomes much more difficult to take that same opposition seriously in their claims regarding how poorly said organization is being run.

  • IanS

    @ Mark #10,

    Ah, well then, in the interest of fairness then, I feel compelled then to copy / paste Bill’s response to your comment in the same thread:

    “Mark, thanks for your insights. I’m quite aware of Vancouver’s status. I referred to what people typically think of as a ‘corporation’ in a business sense. In my experience these 2 things are very different organizations and their structures and staff titles should reflect that difference IMHO. “

  • IanS

    @Mark #11,

    And, while I do appreciate that the best defence is a good offense, I do question (even if your one sided characterization of the previous thread had been accurate) at the logical connection between what you suggest is Bill’s misunderstanding of the legal status of the City and the manner in which the current administration is dealing the staff.

  • spartikus

    Ian,

    I think any reasonable person could be forgiven with interpreting Bill’s initial comment as indicating he did not know what the Corporate Management Team was.

    In the subsequent comment you cite, Bill says yes in fact he does know. If that is truly the case, then he is guilty of allowing his inner smartass to detract from the clarity of the point he was initially trying to make.

    It happens to the best of us. Believe me I know.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Ian

    Bill’s response seemed like such transparent face-saving waffle that it required no further comment.

  • IanS

    @Mark #16,

    You may be right or you may be wrong as to Bill’s knowledge. However, making your implication while ignoring Bill’s subsequent comment in the thread still strikes me as kind of unfair and misleading.

    And, once again, apart from the instinct to lash out , I still don’t think your implication is really on point. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    @Spartikus #15,

    I agree completely.

    And, as for your final comment, I’ve been there myself on more than one occasion.

  • Mark Allerton

    By the way, lest anyone accuse me of making cheap political pot shots and derailing the conversation, yes, I suppose that’s exactly what I’m doing. It was just a bit too good of an opportunity to miss.

  • Agustin

    Let me preface this by saying that I have no idea why any of these people have left City Hall but I’m certainly curious to find out.

    I agree that the quantity of senior people leaving City Hall should give us pause, and I would like to hear from the mayor about it. On the other hand, I’m not sure if it’s possible to have a meaninful debate/conversation about such a complex subject with the entire populace of Vancouver. It would likely degenerate quite quickly into a (more) massive finger-pointing exercise.

    Having said that,

    Michael Geller, #2: “While I appreciate that this is often the norm at the Federal and Provincial levels, when it comes to those working in political offices, and at the Deputy Minister and ADM level, this has not been the norm in municipal government.”

    Why has it not been the norm for municipal staff to accept policy changes or leave? Should it be the norm?

    It seems to me that if you don’t have a bureaucracy that can accept policy changes when government changes, the effect of changing government (and therefore the effect of elections) is diminished.

    Secondly, the structure of governance in Canada has been changing. We have seen a decentralization of government from the feds to the provinces, and from the provinces to the cities (sometimes called “downloading responsibilities”). As a response to this shift, is it not natural for cities, especially large ones, to organize more like the provinces and the feds? Isn’t this a strategy that municipalities can use to cope with the increasing breadth of their scope?

  • Max

    @ Jason #4

    Will Johnston replaced Ark Tsissereve.

    Not even the same ballpark.

    And I understand Carline Robbins is suing the city.

  • Max

    ‘Forget competent-what if the new hires are some first wave of alien invaders?’ sv #5

    ******

    Perhaps we will at long last have the opportunity to put the $25,000 communication plan, in case we are contacted by aliens, into place that was commissioned by COPE.

    (and no, I am not joking)

  • David Hadaway

    Agustin

    The difference is between a neutral civil service that carries out the political objectives of the government whatever they may be and a politicized civil service that may facilitate one government’s policy but obstruct that of another. Ideally this also ensures that members of the civil service are chosen for competence in their field and not by patronage. The line can sometimes be difficult to draw exactly but the distinction has been well understood and institutionalised since Trevelyan’s reforms in Britain in the early 19th century. It is good for society as whole, as a comparison of societies where it exists and where it does not will show, but comes under continuous attack by ideologues of left and right.

  • Jason

    Agustin, I think you’re missing the point.

    The concern is the “politicizing of the bureaucracy” and that people are leaving, not because they don’t want to implement the directions of the new administration, but rather because the administration wants to change the way the bureaucracy functions.

    You want an independent bureaucracy that will provide unbiased, apolitical reports, and carry out the functions of government without political motive. That’s the way the bureaucracy is supposed to function at all levels of government.

    That being said, we don’t know what’s going on, or why such a large percentage of management has left, nor has anyone presented direct evidence that politicization is taking place…but the optics are NOT good.

    I don’t think people should be looking closely at this out of love or hate of Vision, but rather out of a concern that this could have very negative implications on the function of government, REGARDLESS of who’s in power.

  • Agustin

    @ David, #22: I agree, but I have seen no evidence here that the changes have been from a neutral to a partisan civil service. It’s possible, but I don’t think we know.

    It’s also possible that the civil service as it was, was obstructing Vision’s policies.

    It’s also possible that this is all a big coincidence.

    If we say that civil servants are leaving because they are being politicised, then surely there must be some corrollary evidence of this. For example, when the head of Statistics Canada left because his post had been politicised, he made his reasons public.

    Surely if 75% of the senior civil servants were leaving because they thought their posts had been politicised, it would be on the front page of every newspaper.

  • Agustin

    @ Jason, #23: with respect, I don’t think I’ve missed the point; I was just responding to Michael Geller’s post, and specifically to his distinction between federal and municipal governments.

    I do agree with what you say in #23: These departures are cause for investigation, and it’s not to do with the specific policies of Vision but rather the management/governance methods. So let’s hear more so that we can start to form conclusions.

  • Morven

    There may well be a toxic atmosphere among employees. But how much of this caused by downward pressure and how much is inability to adapt.

    It would be toxic if the change management was abrupt and not signalled through 360 appraisal.

    I have no idea since I have never worked at city hall. But I will say that in a similar situation in a country far far away, the tenured civil servants were quite the most adamant that they hated change. They then brought about their own demise by persisting in bureaucratic warfare.

    F

  • Max

    Yet, one needs to question how many of these senior managment have managed to survive 4 + mayors previous to this administration without any problems.

  • Jason

    “If we say that civil servants are leaving because they are being politicised, then surely there must be some corrollary evidence of this. For example, when the head of Statistics Canada left because his post had been politicised, he made his reasons public.”

    Agustin, I do agree with you….there has been a lot of “reported” dissatification with the Vision government, but I haven’t heard anything from the managers who left stating that this was the reason for their departure.

    “It’s also possible that the civil service as it was, was obstructing Vision’s policies.”

    I find this less likely. Why would career bureaucrats, that have likely operated through multiple governments, suddenly decide to start “obstructing” THIS government. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  • Max

    …. but I haven’t heard anything from the managers who left stating that this was the reason for their departure.

    @ Jason #28

    I also wonder how many have had to sign a ‘gag’ order as part in parcel of their settlement.

    And I see Penny Ballam is backing Vision in the upcoming election.

    No partisan politicking there….

  • Agustin

    @ Jason, #28: agreed, it is less likely that the civil service was obstructing Vision policies.

  • Mark Allerton

    Like everyone else here, I’m pretty much just speculating as I have no idea how things work or have worked at City Hall.

    But it is worth pointing out that the majority of mayors throughout Vancouver’s history since 1940 have been from the NPA. They had a straight run through to the 1970s and have been in power for the majority of the time since, with only short periods out of power.

    Obviously I am not about to suggest that anyone in the civil service has been working there for all that time, but it wouldn’t be implausible to believe that an institutional culture could build up around a “natural party of power”.

    One only has to think back to the strike of 2007 to see some signs of possible political polarization within the civil service.

    Have to say that I agree more with Morven’s take on the joys of the British civil service than David Hadaway’s (FWIW I was also born there.)

    Jason asks “why would they suddenly choose to obstruct this government”. I think the question of motive is useful to ask the other way around, too – if Vision has been having a “night of the long knives” with the senior management, as has been alleged – what is their likely motive for this? If the civil service was not obstructing Vision, why would they take that kind of risk?

  • Michelle

    Obviously all these new hires are linked somehow with Vision and/or Ballem’s office (which could be one and the same) Let’s not talk about names, they could have been called anything, ‘Babyface’ for example. I think you should, as per Vivian Krause, FOLLOW THE MONEY behind their raise to office and these people’s AFFILIATIONS. It’s been documented in the history books before, as the modus operandi of the filthy communists. The grab ‘n go routine. City Hall should have never been allowed to be politicized to such extent. Shame.

  • Mary

    Leaving aside for a moment, the notion that in a democracy the civil service must follow the policies of the governors (doh!), I can say from the perspective of a long time government employee – three levels – that a valuable culture that used to exist within the City of Vancouver workforce has been all but lost. The hallmark of that culture was the understanding that it was the job of the elected officials to set the overall direction by making strategic decisions, especially about the allocation of resources, and defining and refining the role that the City was to play in a variety of policy. The role of the civil service was to layout the alternatives along with analysis of pros and cons.

    That practice is now completely gone under the Penny Ballem regime. To be completely candid, it suffered under Judy Rogers as well, more because of Judy’s limited ability to manage some of the more challenging politicians and senior managers. But under Penny Ballem, explicit instruction is given not to present any information that is contrary to the Vision story line. No messing with the Mayor’s “happy stories” by presenting contrary information including facts, risks, policy, precedent, or sheer wrong headedness.

    Not all of those 45 senior staffers who have left, left because of the above described trend. But a significant number did, and it is their loss that is most regrettable. They and the people they have mentored, believe in the separation of roles, believe in a professional civil service, and most of all, object to silencing it at the expense of good governance.

  • Jason

    “I think the question of motive is useful to ask the other way around, too – if Vision has been having a “night of the long knives” with the senior management, as has been alleged – what is their likely motive for this?”

    Actually mark that’s not as difficult to imagine…a young, inexperienced political party takes over with a very definite vision in mind, and who push forward immediately with little interest or knowledge of the workings of government. As they begin to stumble and make poor decisions, the knowledgable beauracracy points out their errors, brings forth facts and statistics that counter the parties vision. As they stumble some more and a few beauracrats provide their unbiased reports or opinions that don’t coincide with the parties vision, the beauracracy begins to be viewed as adversaries that cannot be trusted, and begin to be treated as such. The government begins to get more secretive as they get more concerned about how they are being percieved by the public and begin to keep information from the beauracracy, and insist the beauracracy cease discussion or feedback with the media…the situation continues to deteriorate until the beauracracy feels unappreciated, disrespected and lose overall faith in the politicians and begin to leave. And as each person who leaves is treated with “good riddance” more and more follow suit…

    That’s one possibility….

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Midnight

    “Two dogs, one carrying a woven postal sack, were seen exiting the Dance Hall in a gracious Pasodoble. Since that day, the cat has gone missing.”

    That would…again, my interpretation of the Penny’s memo.
    It is my understanding that Ballem is already putting up posters for the Lost Cat! Nothing looks better, in a press release form, than the image of a deeply concerned mouse-catcher.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sgCQmdEpug

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Ned

    Glissy,
    I’ll carry the picture with the cat in the ‘crease’ with me… for the rest of the day. LOL
    Ballem is a vicious hypocrite.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Jason 34.

    A well illustrated and plausible scenario Jason. One of the strange things related to that perspective is that a number of the Visionistas have been around the Hall for some time. They are not unfamiliar with the “workings of government” nor with the “beauracracy”.

    The different ingredient added to the equation is the Mayor, his back-room helpers and their 500 year ideologically driven Hollyhock plan.

  • Morven

    I have no special knowledge of the workings of Vancouver city. From my own experience in industry, conflicting views and strong arguments are essential to frame proper policies. And senior managers are generally judged by how well they frame policy options and how well they implement the (eventual) chosen policy.

    My observation (only based on reading recent city documents) is that the dynamic of framing policies is somehow weakened or lacking at city hall and that policy arguments are sometimes foregone conclusions.

    If this is indeed correct, it would go a long way to explain the angst among senior managers – their policy advice just falls on deaf ears.

    I hope I am wrong and that the skills of policy analysis are indeed alive and well at city hall. But I am sceptical.
    -30-

  • Just Plain Sad

    Great discussion, finally. The new memo being distributed shows the Corporate Management Team has been turned over 75% in 24 months is very revealing, which for any organization is an extremely high risk situation. No longer should we debating if the politicization of the bureaucracy has happened, or even why for that matter, but what it means to the governance of the City now that it has happened.

    It should appear to work well over the short term while the elected offficials are aligned with their appointed officials, and may continue to some degree of success if Gregor is re-elected with a majority. It will be a grand experiment to see City Hall (elected and appointed officials) continue to be run by a single political party for an extended period of time. Most would agree the “night of the long knives” didn’t work out so well in the long run for that political party and, if history repeats itself, this taxpayer-funded experiment in Vancouver can only end badly.

    The other scenario is equally concerning, and that is if Gregor and/or his majority is not re-elected. In that case the appointed political administration from the earlier regime will be out of step with the new elected Council, and this will create complex eddies of political influence that will be very hard to control and almost certainly result in less than optimal governance. Again, a grand experiment, the inefficiences of which will be funded in the end by the taxpayer.

    For those uncertain yet as to whether this is really happening, be assured it already has. Also be assured that most or all of the 75% of the Corporate Management Team who were pushed out are consummate professionals and few will speak ill of the institution they devoted their careers to, no matter who is in charge of it. So don’t expect scathing public admonitions from these people. Look instead to the facts, and look instead to the calibre and integrity of the people who replaced them for your answers.

    And good luck to us all.