I am employed in the federaI service, and I have the pleasure of having worked at the State and local levels of government.
I have to say this. I don’t view elected officials as “public servants!” Most assuredly not in the 21st century and most certainly not in the fashion noted in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
I really want feedback here, because I believe mischaracterizing elected officials as “public servants” confuses the general public by diminishing line government employees and career government executives. Bureaucrat? I ain’t no stinking bureaucrat, I’m a goddamn public servant!
In my humble opinion, western politics is severely commercialized, but 90% of the work entrusted to the line government employees and careerist executives, is now, and has always been that of “public/civil service.”
I believe this distortion about elected officials places an unrealistic stigma on the people that really do the work that makes the machine of “government” go.
I am a big adherent to the democratic processes that allows some of our elected officials to ascend to public office, but they are not like me. I do not identify with their orientation to working for government and I would not trust them to do my job.
You don’t have to agree with me, but I believe that the real value of public service and civil servants is diminished by not making the distinction in a clear enough way that it resonates with the general public, so that we as “public servants” are really recognized as “working for america.”
I think I get what your saying: It’s the difference between getting the job because of a popularity contest and getting to do the job because you meet critical requirements and have necessary skill sets to keep the wheels of your bureaucracy rolling.
I suppose what confuses people is that black-and-white filmed, Hollywood characterization of what it means to be elected to a government post–it’s as if….
Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” meshes with the character of the community banker of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” We see these two characters as being tragic fraternal twins: Only these guys are fictitious.
I think I get what you’re saying: It’s the difference between getting the job because of a popularity contest and getting to do the job because you meet critical requirements and have necessary skill sets to keep the wheels of your bureaucracy rolling.
I suppose what confuses people is that black-and-white filmed, Hollywood characterization of what it means to be elected to a government post–it’s as if….
Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” meshes with the character of the community banker of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” We see these two characters as being tragic fraternal twins: Only these guys are fictitious.
Hmmm, perhaps it’s the type of folks we send to elected office that needs to change?
Oh, now, we get into campaign finance issues—not everybody can afford the time and money it takes to run for public office……hmmmm, indeed!
Rita, that is 100 percent the biggest hurdle. I still cannot see how normal people can support their families and run for high-level office.
Whenever I encounter the word ‘servent’ in reports, web documents, emails, etc. I change it. Note my comment about ‘who’s your favorite….’ on my page in GovLoop.
If we happen to collect a salary from a government agency or entity, we are part of a service industry, but we are not servents. If everyone who sees and edits reports would get rid of the word from within, that would be a change.
Rita/Adriel,
First of all, thank you for your thoughtful feedback. But the issue of political campaigns, the social pandering, and the whole machine of “politics” as we understand it in the western world is precisely the reason we should make the distinction between “public servants” and elected officials. Don’t get me wrong, I have a tremendous amount of respect for anybody that wants to participate in an election and run for an office, but they are not a public servant. Yes, they do owe a duty of service to their affected population, but they have a latitude of service that I cannot enteratain, as a public servant. I firmly believe that my duty is inescapably for the good of the whole society. Yes, for some of you that might sound like a fairy tale set to the tune of a civil servant; but if I am not exemplary of what I believe, I become complicit in the problem. I am a civil servant and damn proud of it!
LP (that’s short for “LP O’Neill)
Thank you for the admonishment, but as a citizen; I personally see no greater duty than to serve my country for worthwhile causes. I do understand your posture about the designation of a person as a “servant,” but the mortal facts are best stated by, Bob Dylan, “you gotta serve somebody!” It may be the devil, or it may be the lord, but you gonna have to serve somebody!”
In my case, I admire and respect the notion of service to my country, the people that need help, and activities that clearly serve the greater good. No offense intended LP, but I am a Public Servant, and Benjamin Franklin was not. As a matter of fact, ole BF (that was his nickname, right?) was a Statesman (amongst other things), yet he did render splendid service to our burgeoning nation.