Guide to Results Based Management Framework

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

To Anon 8:10 PM - Here is the Treasury Board Guide on doing a framework which sets out objectives and how to measure them before implementation begins..... hope this helps.... it is destined to provide guidance to Federal Deputy Ministers and Ministers to report back to Parliament....

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/RMAF-CGRR/RMAF_Guide_e.pdf

Ed

RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING (RBMR)

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

For nearly twenty years Canadian government agencies including the Federal Treasury Board, international organizations, NGOs, foreign governments and others have worked to enhance the ability to improve the performance and results produced by projects, programs, policies and/or other planned initiatives.

In its simples form, the focus of that effort has been on measuring ..... the effectiveness and efficiency of the use and application of inputs ----> to generate activities ------ > that produce outputs that yield ---> desired RESULTS AND IMPACTS. e.g. ingredients and skills for making a pie ----> lead to making of pie crust, preperation of fruit filling and baking of pie and
invitation of local newspaper food critic ---> that produces the dessert course of a multi-course dinner consumed by the food critic ----> that results in rave reviews in local newspaper that leads to an increase in business.


You can google RBM Treasury Board, Google Result Based Management or take a look at a good power point presentation at http://www.ccrda.org/files/54/files/CCRDA_RBM_Presentation.pdf It provides a bit of background to the genesis and present use of RBM if you are interested.

All this to let you in on a little secret...... From what I can see, neither ACOA or Economic Development are terribly interested in measuring results.... rather the process seems designed to be superficial, without any evidence of causal links between monies invested, activities initiated, outputs produced or impacts and results measuring social and/or economic development. Following is the one page document entitled "South West Shore Development Authority Summary of mid Year Review".














I invite you dear reader to take a look at SWSDA's web page and the 2009-2010 Plan laid out there at:

http://www.swsda.com/userfiles/ABusiness%20Plan%202009-2010%20for%20website(3).pdf

1. Problems you'll encounter include that Annex C identifed in the table of contents dealing with the evaluation of the program for 2008-2009 is not included in the SWSDA web page.... soooo no one knows what success they've claimed for what.

2. Their logic framework appears to be a toothless bastardized version of logic frameworks used in all these models by other organizations. That is because SWSDA and ACOA/Economic Development appear to be basing the conclusions they draw on what they call "measures of success" like lower unemployment.... without having to qualify or quantify what employment level changes are directly attributable to the investments/expenditures/action of SWSDA or even identifying what unemployment levels are presently..... what is missing is what folks call the causal link ..... determined by the measurement of OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVIs).... for each impact, result, output, activity, or input identified.

UNFORTUNATELY THERE ISN'T AN OVI IN SIGHT IN EITHER SWSDA OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'S MODELS......OR REPORTS.

SWSDA Employees

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

For those who are interested, SWSDA's web site provides an overview of their staff including Joan Bower the Development Officer in Shelburne..... see ....

http://www.swsda.com/index.php?a=bio

MOS -and Coast Guard... RE: SWSDA!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Speaking of the MOS..... here is a recent report submitted to the Committee of the Whole.... Feel free to speak to Council members and the Warden to see what decisions Council made, based on this report and the clear recommendations provided by Mr. Cox.......

WHAT A CHANGE SINCE PAULETTE SCOTT, PAT NICKERSON,RAYMOND DAVIS AND REG RIDGELEY HAVE GONE! WOW!!

Why doesn't the Coast Guard provide better coverage & information about this stuff?

See http://www.shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/

for most recent comments on Coast Guard's failure......

Reply to Anonymous 8:25 AM

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Dear Anon 8:25:

Interesting you should mention MOS lawyer.... I understand that one former Councillor indicated that MOS had been advised by one of MOS' lawyers that the Base was beneficially owned by MOS. When I asked the new CAO Mr. Cox ..... I was told that the MOS lawyer had advised MOS that they were not the beneficial owners of the base. Clear as mud isn't it?!?

Given the documentation I've seen.... and Mr. Cox's letter of July 13, 2009, if MOS was a beneficial owner of the base, I believe it was solely in its capacity as a member of the SWSDA and the benefical ownership was therefore shared by all the members of the SWSDA Board.... in my humble opinion.......

Ed

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YE FREE!

BACKGROUND

A quick check of the Coast Guard ... over the past few years will show that Mr. Anderson has long maintained that costs associated with the former Shelburne Naval Station were a burden assumed by SWSDA on behalf of the Municipality of the District of Shelburne. Indeed, it appears that he did such a convincing job that his Board recently voted to consider suing the Municipality for any maintenance and operational costs incurred by SWSDA that exceeded the revenues derived by SWSDA from the acquisition, operation and disposal of the base and its assets...... (Millions of dollars we and Mr. Anderson's Board were told repeatedly, as a way to squeeze additional funds and guarantees from municipalities, we believe.....)

You will also recall dear reader the recommendations .... prepared two years ago by the former Acting CAO of the Municipality of the District of Shelburne, Reg Ridgely, recommending the purchase of the former naval base from SWSDA and the public outcry that ensued some two years ago..... I believe that mis-guided initiative supported by the former Warden Paulette Scott and others on Council at the time was in part motivated by the belief that the Municipality did have an obligation to support SWSDA's operation of the base.


FIRST PROBLEM .... Mr. Anderson's claims of costs exceeding revenues in the base's operations were never documented by Mr. Anderson or anyone else from SWSDA...... Who knows what monies and revenues were generated and collected by Mr. Anderson over the years at the base? Certainly not the SWSDA Board of Directors! Moreover, who knows if the costs attributed by Mr. Anderson to the operation of the Base are the result of poor management by the erstwhile manager of "All Things South West Nova"..... or really attributable to SWSDA's other operational activities and priorities, e.g. - its self-serving ventures in film-making and boat-building or other initiatives?

SECOND PROBLEM.... I have listened to Councilors and others ask repeatedly whether there was any agreement between the Municipality and SWSDA respecting ownership of the Base. Former Wardens Paulette Scott and Pat Nickerson's carefully worded responses were that there were "... no written agreements...".


Sooo..... a couple months ago I went to the Municipality with a Freedom of Information request seeking any documentation describing, alluding to or suggesting any contract or agreement between SWSDA and the Municipality respecting the base. Our new CAO not only searched the municipality's files but also wrote to Mr. Anderson seeking his input if he could provide any such documents. To my knowledge, Mr. Anderson never provided any evidence of contractual arrangements between SWSDA and the municipality respecting ownership of the base or agreements for the municipality to absorb cost overruns incurred by SWSDA related to the Base.

Following is a copy of the two page covering letter received from Mr. Cox in mid-July after his careful search of the Municipality's files.


CONCLUSION..... taxpayers of the Municipality of Shelburne have no contractual arrangements with SWSDA respecting ownership of the base, nor..... do they have an obligation to compensate Mr. Anderson or SWSDA for their reported MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN cost overuns incurred in the operation of the base.


IN FACT THIS WAS ALL A FABRICATION FOUND ONLY IN THE MIND OF MR. ANDERSON AS FAR AS ANYONE CAN TELL!

ANOTHER SELF-SERVING URBAN LEGEND BITES THE DUST !!!!

Sheesh!! - Impatient ... or what!?! ( ;-)

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

To Anon 10:52 AM - Working as fast as these little fingers will let me!!!

Will Post new blog ASAP...... Thanks for your interest.......

Ed

To Anon 8:15 AM - The Boys School Sale was Challenged in court by OPI as being a Fraudulent Conveyance and OPI asked the court to set aside the monies from the maintenance fund and the proceeds of the sale....

When we got to trial ..... we discovered that to add insult to injury.... SWSDA swore in affidavits signed by Mr. Anderson a couple weeks before trial and confirmed at trial by his lawyer Mr. Belliveau that .... the money was gone.... had all been spent by SWSDA ...

As a result .... OPI and the municipalities agreed with SWSDA to a Consent Order from the Supreme Court to have money from the sale of the base, set aside by SWSDA to replace the Boys School monies already reportedly spent by Mr. Anderson as of early December 2007.

Since then OPI has identified what it believes are a number of problems with SWSDA's compliance with the Court's Consent Order to replace the Boys School monies and has initiated a Contempt of Court action against SWSDA that will be heard in Shelburne in late October.

OPI's application for Leave to file the Contempt Charges against SWSDA was heard in the Supreme Court and agreed to by the Court in August 2008. ..... Affidavits in these actions have been submitted and are available from the court . They set out OPI's evidence of Contempt of court by SWSDA ..... and ..... SWSDA's defence ..... claiming it was all a miss-understanding.

Hope this helps ......... Ed

Summer is Just Starting to be Interesting!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Dear Reader:

I am back home tomorrow after a dozen glorious days in St. Andrews, New Brunswick with kids, grandkids and inlaws.... something refreshing about spending time with folks between the ages of 2 and 90!!! Great way to review and challenge perspectives.... recuperate from open heart surgery and more than four weeks in hospital....

I'll be glad to be back.... so much to do and write about......So lets get this blog back on track.......

This week's submission will begin ....... with a review of what constitutes Evaluation in today's "Best Management Practices" and the so-called "evaluation" conducted by Economic development of SWSDA.... In doing so we will talk about the standard now accepted by local, regional, national and international bodies....... "Results-Based Management AND Monitoring"....... AND ...... ask the question.... can we rely on the findings flowing from the evaluation process used by Economic Development and if not what changes should we seek in the system.....

SWSDA Mis-direction Uncovered Again

I will also share with you on this blog..... a very informative letter I received from the Municipality of Shelburne about the purported millions of dollars Mr. Anderson has repeatedly claimed was owed to SWSDA by the taxpayers of the municipality.... amazing how far one can get on bluff, bravado and BS.... Thank you Mr. Cox for helping rebut the urban legend perpetuated by former Wardens and Councillors and Acting CAOs about our collective indebtedness to SWSDA!

In my other blog I intend to end the week with a discussion of the potential structure of organized development in Shelburne County and some of the options available to ensure public participation and accountability in the process.......

We'll take a brief look at the options for creating a functional RDA, the role that a group like Team Shelburne might play, how a properly mandated Shelburne County Industrial Commission might help and become an integral part of the development team .....and what to do with inefficient and ineffective regional provincial government agencies dealing with education, community services, economic development, health and more...... I can hardly wait! We might even ask some questions about the management of marine resources and fisheries...... and energy! Keep an eye on my other blog too..... But before we do......

SO.... WHAT IS A TROLL?

From Wikipedia....

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikipedia essay, see "What is a troll?".In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Tune in on Friday......

How to ruin blogs!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Dear Reader:

There are many ways to ruin a blog. One is to post comments provided by readers that are clearly libelous. By publishing other people's libel the blogger becomes guilty of libel. I have rejected a handful of blogs over the past few months because they made statements that could be challenged in court. Of the hundreds of comments provided by readers, a handful have been rejected by yours truly as inappropriate for that reason.

Another way to ruin a blog is to spam it with the same message repeated over and over again. That is why the coded message confirmation pops up on occasion. It is a "blogspot application" to help control spam blitzes. Only one reader has tried to do that copying a message supporting SWSDA and Mr. Anderson over a dozen times in less than three minutes.... even with the confirmation message. Needless to say, I didn't post the dozen repeated message.... although I did let one copy get through.

A third and more insidious way to destroy blogs is to raise red herrings bringing into question how the blog is administered or who reads and comments on the blog. In the last couple days an anonymous poster has done that asking rhetorical questions about the integrity of the anonymous function on this blog. Let me assure my readers that the software I am using is google software and I am unable to tell who anonymous posters are. In three comments submitted in quick succession that person has suggested that I am protecting Tim, that anonymous posts may not be anonymous, suggested that there is collusion amongst readers who choose to identify themselves as a group.... you know what I mean..... the old "do you still beat your wife " type of question. ... with a quick accusation that the lie must be true if I didn't respond to the red herring statements within 24 hours in mid-summer!

Of course all of these comments have been submitted by someone who prefers to remain anonymous... even though he/she questions the integrity of the anonymous function and keeps submitting comments.... Funny how that works.....

I have posted all of these because I wanted to share with you dear reader some of the challenges associated with managing a blog. You will of course note that had I wanted to I could have started swsdaaccountability as an anonymous blogger and google would never have identified who I was. Even a court order would not have pried my name from google had I wished to remain anonymous...... The same rules apply to those who comment on my blogs anonymously. Unless you identify yourself in your comments.... no one will ever know who you are.