Inertia and status quo is the default in the public sector, for the bureaucrats, the managers that oversee them and the politicians elected to oversee them.
Change is risky in that world. The current systems and procedures, as well as the people who do them, are known quantities. They may not be perfect but they are predictable. Better to stick with that than to take a chance on someone or something new, which comes with uncertain outcomes, even if the risk is minimal and the benefits are significant.
Combine that with a cover-my-ass culture, where few want to take sole responsibility for any decision, for fear they will wear both the blame and the shame alone if things go wrong. Better to decide things in committee, so that if the plan works out well, everybody gets to take credit and if the decision is a disaster, it's no one's fault.
It's a miracle that anything ever gets done.
Fortunately, policy and procedure gets written down, so as long as the bureaucrats are doing things "by the book," they have the cover they need to make decisions. If there is opposition, the civil servant cites the policy and shrugs "just doing my job."
This blind faith to the status quo has been the cause of both great social harm and ongoing injustice on an individual level. Discriminatory practices have been allowed to continue for far too long, solely out of reluctance to recognize the problem and then make necessary changes.
Sweet, gentle souls, hopeless naive but historically ignorant, believe that nudges and patient persuasion of politicians and senior bureaucrats will eventually bring about meaningful change. To be fair, it does happen from time to time - at about the frequency of a total solar eclipse - but it's far more often an exercise in frustration and futility.
The squeaky wheel really does get the grease and the squeakier the wheel the better.
Unfortunately, that squeak increasingly needs to be loud, angry, relentless and uncompromising.
Kicking up a fuss will often get people in the door, where they are then forced to change their approach. In exchange for the willingness of powerful people willing to listen and nod as if they care, those seeking change are asked to be patient, to turn down their rhetoric and protest, to work with the system to get things done.
After months and years go by, with little change after countless meetings and endless pleas for continued patience and a willingness to work together, people and organizations seeking change are faced with the difficult decision of walking away from the relationship when the promised land might be just around the corner or hanging tough and hoping their patience will be finally rewarded.
This is the obstacle course social advocates are forced to navigate.
Being on the side of sweetness, light and the arc of progress, however, is not enough. Most politicians need to make an obvious gain or pay an obvious price before wholeheartedly supporting any cause, providing the cover for the bureaucracy to begrudgingly update its policies and procedures.
And sometimes it's still not enough.
Making new public buildings universally accessible is now long-standing practice, a hard-fought victory by advocates for seniors and those with mobility issues wanting to enter and exit these facilities the same way everyone else does.
Universal access is not the same thing as having a separate "handicapped" entrance. Universal access means everyone uses the same door, regardless of their degree of mobility. The Ancient Forest boardwalk, for example, is universally accessible - everyone can use it.
Separate entrances, separate exits, separate washrooms and so on are simply modern forms of segregation.
There are no separate entrances in public buildings for blacks or Indigenous people or gays or women. Such an idea is abhorrent. Why then is it acceptable for separate entrances and washrooms for those with mobility issues?
Yet having those separate entrances is called "accommodation," as if the public sector is doing these folks some big favor by adding a ramp on the side and a wide enough door.
The Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George, which has won numerous awards for its architect and is heralded around the world as a model for modern lumber use, is a failure when it comes to accessibility.
But wait.
It's not the city's building, it's the province's building so it's their responsibility, even though the building is in Prince George and has to meet municipal standards and city bylaws, just like any other developer.
As a result, the city building inspector follows policy and gets to ignore doors that aren't wide enough for wheelchairs, a fire exit that includes a step down and other basic accessibility standards not met.
So even though the battle for equal accessibility into public buildings has already been won, the war continues for real world change and public shame and embarrassment seem to be the only tool sharp enough to puncture the status quo bubble where the public sector resides.
-- Editor-in-chief Neil Godbout
