Need to monitor public service

THE EDITOR: The Issue

We hear a lot about Public Service Sector Reform. In fact we have been hearing about it for the last 10-15 years. The late Gordon Draper, an acknowledged management expert, was considered one of the pioneers in the field. Yet in spite of the pronouncements, what do we have to show as tangible achievements over the period? What benefits are the average citizen/taxpayer entitled to as a result of the process? Is public service sector reform analogous to the improved delivery of public goods and services or is it a holistic exercise that has that outcome as one of its many objectives? Is there a clear policy on this? Is there a comprehensive plan? Has it been implemented? Are there benchmarks to judge success?

Public Assessment
The average member of the public can only assess progress in this exercise by the quality of delivery of public goods and services. There are certainly a number of examples of inadequate delivery of services and it is not necessary to enumerate them here. There is a generally acknowledged breakdown of public administration. People simply do not have confidence in many aspects of the system and many have come to accept poor quality in delivery as the norm, for example, education, health, works and so on.

An Example
The incident which prompted the revisiting of this issue occurred just two Mondays ago. Early that morning, prior to proceeding on other urgent business, a decision was made to visit the Revenue Office to pay land and building taxes. After taking the number seven off the dispenser I sat with the other waiting customers only to be advised of their frustration at not being served. Questioning the clerks behind the counter met with the explanation that the officer with the key to the vault had not arrived and all their working materials were in there. This was 8.30 am. Quite properly, the clerks were apologetic but their frustration was obvious. They could give no assurances to the anxious clientele. When asked whether there were  back-up systems to deal with the situation the senior clerk indicated there was none but she was optimistic, since ‘he did not call and say he was not coming’. He arrived around 8.45 am and promptly opened the vault.

Implications
Everyone seemed to accept the situation as being normal. Very few of the waiting customers felt empowered to ask a question or protest the situation. None of the clerks felt the need to be proactive and ease the concerns of their waiting patrons. The errant officer hardly seemed bothered about the delay he had caused. No one felt obliged to say anything to him. He was the second person in charge and the first person was not present. It was just another day in paradise.  There were, of course, positives. The senior clerk who spent time explaining the delay was very apologetic and civil towards me. She did not take my questioning of the system personally. The other clerks dealt urgently with the public when the vault was opened.

Solution
Low expectations from members of the public translate into low performance standards. There appears to be a lack of accountability and negligible monitoring of service delivery. No one was in charge or accountable. Was there a register to record when the vault was opened that morning? Who cares anyway? I acknowledge that cynicism will not bring about a solution. However, there is a need to put in place systems to ensure that customer, that is, citizens’ concerns about the operation of a delivery system are not only recorded but corrective steps put in place to address the situation. Managers in the public service must not abdicate their role and consequent responsibilities.

L GELLINEAU
D’Abadie