I was planning to write a fairly long blog about the responsibility  of media to balance getting the message out vs. giving consumers a choice in the matter. Particularly with some stories that contain gruesome details. These days with social media we have far more opportunities to engage with the media and likewise they have far more abilities to engage with us.

But as sometimes happens, two local sources, Jay Mendard and Nathan Smith have both written excellent blogs on the topic, which pretty well sums up my feelings on the whole thing. I highly suggest reading both of them.

One of the common threads throughout the various recommendations across all government ministries is the desire to find a better way of doing things.  This covers many forms but the report made sure to not recommend across the board cuts or a hiring freeze.  They feel that this only offers short term gains and will not be sustainable for the 7-8 years need to get back to balanced spending. Instead they are recommending making objectives more more evidence based. “The government should collect data and use it to evaluate whether objectives are being met and how efficiently.”

I interpret this to mean no ministry policy should be set with a strictly political view ignoring other evidence given from the specialists in those ministries. In other word don’t ignore your own staff.  As we have seen on a local level, politicians ignoring staff often add time, cost and frustration to the design making process.

Most people in any profession genuinely wants the best for the organization, the people they serve and themselves.  Its when an environment of illogical decisions, a lack of control and other such things will lead to people becoming frustrated and non caring towards their job.

Let’s talk about 1 example.

Health care is the largest spending areas that the Drummond report gives the most recommendations to. No wonder it is the area that most people expect to be well funded and to give them the results they desire in terms of service.

We are left with the challenge of reforming the health care system to make it operate more efficiently and give us greater value for money. This is not easy, especially not when every proposal for fundamental change is greeted in some quarters by cries that medicare will be destroyed if Proposal X or Recommendation Y or Scenario Z is adopted. The public debate in Canada has been poisoned in recent decades by a widespread failure to comprehend the issues or trade-offs that must be made; by knee-jerk reactions to worthy but complex ideas for change; by politicians (and media outlets) who have been too willing to pander to fear-mongering; by stakeholders in the health care system who, wishing to cling to the status quo, resist change; and generally by a lack of open-minded acceptance of the reality that change is needed now and that money alone will solve nothing.

One of the largest problems affecting the health care system, is that as a system designed for acute care it needs to be moving towards a system for chronic care.  This is needed because of Ontario’s aging population.  This will not only save money but improve the system which is a goal all citizens should desire. In multiple polls several common threads emerged.

In Ontario, a few simple messages emerge from the polling results that do seem robust: Ontarians regard health care as the single most important public policy issue; they are wedded to the single, public payer model; and they will not tolerate anything that causes deteriorationin access and quality of care. Also, there now seems to be less concern that all services be delivered under public administration, as long as the bill can be covered by an OHIP card.

The last bit should be noted as it gives some greater opportunity to think of more efficient ideas that will benefit all patients in the health care system. One of the most important is to integrate the “silos” that currently exist across the “system”. The report gives an excellent example of how the system breaks down.

Case Study #1: A 50-year-old woman has a mammogram. The results go to her family physician, whose office calls and asks her to come in for the nextavailable appointment, which is a week later. At the appointment, the family physician says the results are positive for cancer and that she will arrange for a needle aspiration. The family physician has trouble finding a radiologist to do the needle aspiration and it takes three weeks to have it performed. The radiologist then has difficulty finding the mammogram as it was done somewhere other than in his clinic, creating further delay. The aspiration shows suspicious cells and the family physician’s office calls the patient back and asks her to make another appointment to discuss the results. The family physician now wishes to do an MRI, and again there is difficulty getting it done in atimely fashion. Meanwhile, the patient is becoming frantic and taking a lot of time off work. When the MRI is done, the patient is again called back to the family physician’s office where the doctor tries to find a breast cancer surgeon to perform a biopsy as her preferred surgeon is on holiday. Three weeks later, the breast cancer surgeon performs the biopsy, which is found to be negative (i.e., cancer-free).

Case Study #1, What could happen: After a positive mammogram, the patient is referred electronically as a “Category 1” to a breast assessment centre. The patient goes online to her own record and links to the centre, where she can find and book an appointment at a time that suits her that is also within the Category 1 window for diagnosis and treatment. Through this online portal, the patient is also told how to prepare and what to expect at her appointment. When the patient arrives at the breast assessment centre within the proper time-frame set out by best practice guidelines, she sees a nurse practitioner expert and has her blood work done, a needle aspiration and an examination by doctor, all in one appointment. The patient then books her own followup appointment for four days later, which happens to be an early evening appointment so she can go after work. At the followup appointment, her results are discussed and are also available to the patient online,with email and text access to a registered nurse. That followup appointment avoids the unnecessary MRI and the patient is booked for biopsy. Again, the patient can see the results and discuss them immediately by email and phone.

This is just one example of how we have to start thinking of different ways to deliver services, not only for cutting a deficit but making it better for all citizens of the province. In recent decades we have had all three major political parties in power and we still have not got it right. It is getting better but the change needs to be accelerated and rethought in line with our situation in the 21st century.

The summary begins with what the mandate of the committee was given.

1. Advise on how to balance the budget earlier than 2017–18.

2. Once the budget is balanced, ensure a sustainable fiscal environment.

3. Ensure that the government is getting value for money in all its activities.

4. Do not recommend privatization of health care or education.

5. Do not recommend tax increases.

We have developed a number of broad guidelines for our recommended actions. Government ministries and agencies should always strive for efficiency gains, not only when driven by overall budget restraint or in response to problems unearthed by the Auditor General or exposed by a spending scandal. We have also drawn lessons from both public- and private sector

restructurings, a series of “dos and don’ts” that we will set out in reverse order

The “don’ts” are proposals that sound useful, but are often harmful:

Do not simply cut costs. The imperative to restrain spending should instead be an opportunity to reform programs and service delivery;

Avoid across-the-board cuts. They represent an abdication of the government’s responsibility to make real, and often difficult, decisions;

Avoid setting targets for the size of the civil service. A leaner civil service will be an inevitable result of lower-cost programs and achieving greater value for money;

Do not rely unduly on hiring freezes and attrition to reduce the size of the civil service;

Do not hang onto public assets or public service delivery when better options exist; and

Do not resort to traditional short-term fixes.

The “dos” apply across the entire public sector:

The government should issue a road map setting out its vision. Such a document would both inform the public about the changes that lie ahead and also serve as a script for all bureaucrats;

Higher priority should be given to programs and activities that invest in the future rather than serve the status quo;

Policy development should be more evidence-based — with clear objectives set based on sound research and evidence — and relevant data collected and used to evaluate programs;

Governments must minimize the cost of operations, but they also need rules to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not abused. The pendulum has now swung too far towards excessive rules, with too many layers of watchers at the expense of people who actually get things done. The Ontario government must find a new middle ground;

Within their operations, public-sector service providers should assign people to jobs where they are most effective, efficient and affordable;

Seek common themes across the reforms to achieve economies of scale and to simplify communications; and Reform must be pervasive and speedy. Broader action favours a public perception that the reforms are fair, as opposed to a view that a few programs were unfairly targeted. Change is disruptive, but the medicine does not go down more easily if it is dragged out over a long period.

I have highlighted several sections which all follow the theme I’m seeing in the report. We must look at these issues from a new directions. As society as a while changes with time, the way that the puplic sector services the citizens of Ontario will change as well. In that regard it is worth stepping back and getting out of our comfort zones to see if better ways can be found.  The word opportunity is used in the report many times, and I believe this is an opportunity that will benefit all stakeholders.

The task ahead need not be dreary. Many will scoff that the very idea of creating an organization that delivers the world’s best public services is hopelessly naive, and that we should not even think of such lofty goals. But high ambition should never be sneered at.

Such an objective could instil in our politicians, our public servants and all Ontarians a sense of purpose that would help see us all through this monumental mission.

Why not?

Why not indeed.

In the next part I’ll actually get to some of the recommendations.:-)

Considering even many public officials did not have time to go through the entire report yet, I found it rather dissapointing the people from all sides of the political and public service spectrum were quick to dismiss sections of it.  This report has some very good ideas but the first thing people should do is read it not as a support of the left or the right but as a citizen of Ontario. Although some of the issues will be controversial they must be looked out with out the partisitan lenses we have been seeing more and more in all levels of governments. This is a trend I am not happy with.

Several comments from the report must be agreed upon by all sides.

“Spending simply cannot return to recent trends”

“The only way to get out of deficits and stay out, in a period of limited economic growth, is to reform government programs and the manner in which they are delivered.

This should be viewed as an opportunity, not a problem. Ontario can and should have the best public services in the world; this is an opportunity to reach for that goal. To get there, we should study promising practices around the world by others who have faced similar issues.”

“The calling of public service must be restored to a position of honour and respect, so it can draw the province’s best and brightest. Their performance should be adequately compensated and rewarded — not for effort, but for results. There is huge value in a public service that can think deeply and wisely about public policy and deliver effective programs in an efficient manner.”

Mr Drummond also finishes up his forward with the following. “Although we have not made a formal recommendation on this point, I urge you to consider holding broader consultations on the economic and fiscal challenges facing this province. Ontarians have not yet grasped the extent to which the slow decline of this province’s manufacturing base has undermined both its historic economic advantage relative to the rest of Canada and the provincial government’s long-term ability to finance the public services they treasure. You should go beyond a legislative body to review our report and consult as well with the wider public through town hall gatherings and meetings of stakeholders. An informed public is essential to the success of the reforms.”

In the next blog post I’ll be going into some detail about some of the items in the report.

However recently after moving to a two LCD monitor arrangement I’ve found myself wishing for more work room. In addition as the picture shows, things were getting rather cluttered.

Obviously a rethink was needed as the mess was starting to impact my productivity. What tends to work for myself is to completely clear out the space and start from scratch. I had a good idea on what I wanted for a new desk, namely a non corner unit with a large work surface.  I had the room so it was just a matter of getting it done.

First came the job of clearing everything out of the space, which included the computer, monitors, routers switches etc.

One of our cats Marley likes to take great delight in going under the desk and playing with the cables to bug me.  He was not impressed that the old desk was going.

For the new desk the plan was to use a large 60×30 sheet of white mdf material with some simple legs.  I found these square frames that fold into a L to support the desk surface.

And here is the result.

Marley seems to like it. You can see how the leg frame work, this give a lot more room underneath.

After quite a few hours of trial and error I came up with what is in the photo below. One of the goals was to get the cpu up off the floor and onto the desk, this has been achieved and enough extra desk space is available that I can comfortably put the Macbook Pro on it at the same time.

Over the next little while I’ll be doing some more tweaks as well as adding some storage underneath to better sort things, I’ll post a shot when it’s done.

Council met in camera to discuss “a legal matter pertaining to advice re the occupy movement”  During this meeting a vote was taken to have the park cleared. We don’t know the result of this vote as it was done in-camera. We do know raised voices were heard from outside council chambers and Mayor Fontana did say he had overwhelming support but not unanimous.

The purpose of in-camera meetings are described in the municipal act quite clearly.

A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;

(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;

(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;

(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board;

(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;

(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (2).

In this situation council may have had this meeting behind close doors without a valid reason. The only exception I can see this in-camera meeting a shred of validity is section F. As I have stated before transparency is very important, if you are not willing to go on the record for a vote because you feel it will be not popular then don’t run for office.

Most intelligent voters realize they will not agree with a politician on every issue, but most people will have far more respect for someone who is honest and transparent. I will respect someone who is more open who I don’t agree with on some issues far more then someone who bends the rules to only release ‘good’ news. This is why some people are puzzled when I say I have the respect of some politicians that I don’t agree with most of the time.

As Patrick Maloney pointed out in his London Free Press article, Council could be opening themselves to a legal can or worms. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada warned London that municipal affairs can not be done in secret. That particular adventure cost the city $300,000 in legal fees.

The Ontario Ombudsman’s office has received two formal complaints about this ‘secret’ meeting so it will be interesting to see what happens with this going forward.

I would love to see a motion to release the minutes of this meeting and the voting results. Not to play the blame game but for the nature of open and transparent government. However that would involve a 2/3 majority to achieve, which would not be that likely given that some on Council don’t want the public to know how they voted. Considering there was a push for Citizen engagement by the city recently, this is very disappointing

Update: Several people have commented that section a could also apply in this instance.  That is true but IMHO still a stretch and doesn’t address my original issue of an unnecessary secret vote.

I’ll spare the fine details but in a nutshell after our company was recently purchased it was decided to close the IT operation in London by the end of 2012.  My last day with the company is Oct 31st,  and then I’ll be enjoying the first break from school or work since I was about 15. The offer the company has given me is very generous and will enable myself to enjoy this period ahead.

Despite Alicia’s horror that I may be underfoot at home I plan to be busy both in and out of the house. During this time I’m going to continue some of the projects I am involved with including the unLondon/unLab and the Downtown London WiFi project. In the new year  I plan to step back a bit and decide what I want to do next career wise and in life.  20+ years is a long time to do anything and it may be time for a change. Now that I’ve made the decision I’m so calm with the idea and looking forward to it.

Do not therefore consider this life as an object of any moment. Look back on the immense gulf of time already past; and forwards, to that infinite duration yet to come, and you will find how trifling the difference is between a life of three days and of three ages.

Let us then employ properly this moment of time allotted us by fate, and leave the world contentedly; like a ripe olive dropping from its stalk, speaking well of the soil that produced it, and of the tree that bore it.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

As keeping a dialog going on Twitter can be time consuming some candidates during an election will have their staff tweet for them. For things such as press releases, event notifications etc, this is fine. However to keep transparency, candidates should put on their twitter profile is they alone and/or staff will post to twitter using the candidates account.  It is also recommend that if it is staff tweeting that should be clear in the tweet by posting their initials at the end of the of the message.

I will be requesting this information from the candidates running in London and area ridings who I know have a twitter account.  As I get the information back I’ll update the results on this spreadsheet.

Thanks all.

Well now I have that opportunity.  Fellow UnLab member Sean Quigley and myself have just finished the first episode of a new podcast called This Week In London Tweets or TWILT for short.  In this podcast we touch on the topics that London twitter users are talking about.  This first show was more on the political side and I expect a good portion of shows will be along that those lines, but if a tech or arts story comes around that gets the London twitter sphere buzzing then we will cover it.

You can check out the show blog at http://twiltpodcast.wordpress.com/ which will have links to episodes. Both Sean and I hope you enjoy it.