When Bureaucracy Becomes a Three-Sided Coin

That's when ridiculousness materializes.

When the loudest noise is the invisible wheels of local government screeching to a hard stop.

That noise is generally only a fleeting annoyance to the public as we read the local paper.

But every now and then, reading the local paper's take on bureaucratic "issues" immediately produces another noise...."oh puh-lease" from readers.

Take two recent examples:

It's local election time and, naturally, candidate signs have been popping up at roadsides in communities.

The soil hadn't yet settled around signs' posts when Vernon's bureaucrats reminded the sitting council that candidates were in violation of the Sign Bylaw they themselves enacted or--more accurately--approved.  (Bylaws are generally enacted after submission of a "staff (bureaucratic) report".

Turns out that Vernon's bylaw "doesn't permit election signs on public right(sic)-of-way," as editorialized by Rolke in The Morning Star yesterday.  Sitting councillor Brian Quiring had the pluck to state what I felt myself on reading the story "I think it's crazy...it's like Christmas for the bylaw guys -- let's yank these things down."

Some candidates' signs were on rights-of-way, some were posted on private property with the permission of the landowner.  If rights-of-way signage were to be pulled down by the bylaw guys, the "city would be seen to favour some candidates over others."   And Vernon's top bureaucrat attests "we don't."

Rolke had his take on it:  "By shelving the rules for politicians, the wrong message is being sent...consider that candidates can post signs where they want without ramification but if a non-profit agency hangs a fundraising banner without the required permit ... it gets ripped down."

Reporter Rolke suggests if election candidates are de facto exempt from the bylaw, "they may ... have bent the law."

That's two sides of the coin.

The third side of the coin, to this member of the public, assumes that both aspiring and sitting politicians -- and bureaucrats haven't forgotten a recent provincial focus to reduce and eliminate Red Tape.
Unnecessary red tape.

Remember that?
I do.
But bureaucrats obviously don't. 

So what are bureaucrats' plans four years from now?
Send election hopefuls a $50 invoice for legal placement of an election sign?
Is that why communities have a Sign Bylaw in the first place?

Maybe it's the bureaucratic way of preventing this...

Farm properties' (business) signs in Oliver, B.C.

or perhaps to prevent a physical repeat by the biggest sign landlord in the province, Pattison Ltd., whose highway billboards are so numerous that they denote sign pollution...think Highway 97 west of Kelowna's bridge.

Yet another three-sided coin:
The public's "oh puh-lease" sour mood can be forgiven from this second feature--albeit front-page:   "Officials delay action on gateway signs", crumbling gateway signs, featured in the October 17th issue.

http://northokanagandaily.blogspot.ca/2014/01/metaphor-for-failed-amalgamation-study.html

 

Seems the Regional District of North Okanagan "doesn't have a function for the operation and maintenance of these signs", said RDNO top bureaucrat David Sewell.  Sewell stated repairs were a "challenge".

Huh?
These signs were installed six years ago by Greater Vernon's "then-economic development function...which disbanded in 2009" reports the newspaper. 

Even if the "service" ("function"...to maintain the signs) were created, it would apparently depend on whether Vernon, Coldstream and two electoral areas "wanted to participate" (read:  pay for it).  They must've been involved when the three signs were planned and installed.  Was there no thought given to maintaining the signs?

But "even if the signs were demolished," director Sawatzky (and current Vernon mayor, who has chosen to retire from politics) said "You'd still need a budget to take them down."

"Oh puh-lease" pops into my mind, the only printable response to those quotes.

Function?

That word alone is another three-sided coin.
It's a noun and a verb, but Regional District bureaucrats don't seem to understand it.

Regional District directors should've more accurately named it a Department, a noun, as in "department of".

Vernon councillor Mary-Jo O'Keefe called it correctly during last year's "amalgamation" non-study when she considered the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee directorship of the regional district "...it's dysfunctional."

"Three-sided coins lead to the public's sour moods," affirms Kia.

And it will ever be thus.
To the laughter of bureaucrats.

"Hate bureaucracy, and the bureaucrats that practise it."

Jack Welch, former Chairman, GM