It seems that a Welsh civil servant, who blogged, was dismissed from his position after running reportedly neutral commentaries about negotiations to form a coalition government in the Welsh National Assembly.

This all took place much earlier this year, but the civil servant has been appealing the decision and was due to appear before an Employment Tribunal last week.

The past history and contemporary reaction to the firing has been reported in the Western Mail and commented upon by Miss Wagstaff, Paul Canning, Matt Wardman and Dave Briggs.

It’s important to note why he was dismissed: for contravening the Welsh Civil Service Code, particularly:

” … sections headed “integrity” and “rights and responsibilities”.

Under integrity, the relevant clauses read: “You must always act in a way that is professional and that deserves and retains the confidence of all those with whom you have dealings,” and: “You must not misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others.”

Under rights and responsibilities, the clause considered to have been broken states: “This Code is part of the contractual relationship between you and your employer. It sets out the high standards of behaviour expected of you which follow from your position in public and national life as a civil servant. You can take pride in living up to these values.” (Western Mail)

The decision to punish a civil servant for blogging appears to lie in stark contrast to the environment in London, where the Principles for Online Participation by Civil Servants were released (which, we must remember, also link to the Civil Service Code).

Matt Wardman appears to have identified the essential point: there seem to be very different administrative cultures in London and Cardiff Bay:

In dealing with this issue the English Civil Service is living in 2008 (thank-you, Tom Watson), while the Welsh Assembly Government seems to have travelled in the TARDIS back to 1953 or so, and is hunkered down in the Torchwood Bunker.

Important Point: just because citizens constantly refer to “government,” no matter if speaking about their local, county, state, provincial or national legislature, it does not mean all governments are homogeneous. A properly working government will naturally reflect local social mores, prejudices, preferences and impulses.

It’s naive and unreasonable to expect that all governments will adapt to technological change at the same pace, or that their administrative cultures will evolve in a similar pattern when faced with pressures to change and adapt.

(Insert joke about policy science, administrative science and Intelligent Design here)

Another Important Point: many civil servants may find that their activities online are, in fact, constrained by the codes, oaths and policies they signed on to when joining the public service.

There are very good historical reasons for the barriers between policy advice, administrative influence and political behaviour: these barriers can be lowered under certain circumstances - but it is always perceived poorly if the barriers appear to have been breached.

That is why information and case studies on social media activities must be shared among civil servants world-wide: to provide them with the debating points and practical responses that will help move administrators and politicians.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm and is filed under Government to Government, Career, Strategy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.