As the responsibilities and structures of the government at its various levels and in its different branches become ever greater, public administration faces twin dangers. On the on hand, it could lose touch with the people, fail adequately to respond to their needs, and cease to promote the creative citizen initiative and responsibility without which a vibrant civil society and national life cannot develop. On the other hand, the very complexity national life opens ways for manipulation for individual or limited group self-interests to the detriment of the broader common good. How then can personal and public interests be so understood and interconnected that they do not conflict, but promote each other and both the private and public interests. This could be the theme of the first 2 sessions on the morning of the May 12.

In this light what then is good public administration. Certainly it must protect, promote and apply the material resources of the nation. But it must do so in such wise that usage is truly promotive of the full human welfare of all the citizens. Hence, not only technical efficiency but ethical concerns for human well being. This must mean more than applying general ethical principles and values – whose guidance must indeed be sought. But beyond this the full human welfare of the citizens must always be promoted. This means developing as well the virtues of a people by which persons and their communities can act truly well, specially as citizens. This could be the 3^rd and 4^th sessions on the afternoon of May 12.

Yet more concretely the Canadian Federal Accountability Act (CFAA) is now concerned to promote public service through accountability and transparency. Like all concrete steps this entails its own conundra to which careful attention must be addressed. The second day of the conference will be directed to this, for the concept of accountability must accommodate what could prove to be two conflicting goals: (1) that the financial resources of the Canadian Government be optimally used; and (2) that the Canadian Government be accountable to the needs of its citizens. Each of these taken separately has its own internal tensions.

The first idea states that waste must be avoided while maintaining ethical standards. Easy cases abound in which everyone agrees that waste has or has not occurred. But there exist cases in which this is not clear. Moreover, the concept “highest ethical standards” is problematic for articulating this could lead to an overabundance of rules, engendering the well-known problem of stifling creative problem solving. Finally, even if a minimum set of principles does find a consensus, their application could prove problematic.[1]

The second idea implies that the Canadian Government is not simply a tax-payer’s money manager. Dealing with citizens, with real life situations, means that new and often quite different situations will arise. This moves away from a culture of rules to one more of virtues, even situational ones.

Taken together the conundra are intensified for the perspective behind the first goal could see the fulfillment of the second goal as running into problems, even distorting and bending rules – a likely opening to further problems of financial mismanagement. The perspective behind the second goal could see the fulfillment of the first as problematic, for adherence to general rules can lead to various kinds of injustices that simply cannot be accounted for in advance.

Hence, the morning of May 13 will build upon the work of May 12 with the goal of making some progress in search for ways in which the ethical goals of the CFAA can be realized. In sum, the goal is to consider in depth just how “accountability” can be understood and how it can be achieved in public service.

Dr. Richard Feist
Dean, Faculty of Philosophy
St. Paul University
223 Main Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1S 1C4
Email: rfeist@ustpaul.ca
Phone: (613) 236-1393; ext. 2459
Office: 304 Pavillon Laframboise

[1] “Transparency” is often held up as a guiding principle. However, there are limits to transparency’s efficacy. Is there such a thing as “too much transparency?” If so, then waste would quickly follow.