The administrative machinery at Edmonton city hall stepped in it this week on the issue of bike lanes.

Instead of just putting their heads down and building those bike lanes, they got spooked by threats from the UCP government and brought forward a recommendation to Edmonton city council to slow down, to reconsider that council’s previous direction.

Rather than wait for new legislation to drop, Edmonton’s city administration decided to do Devin Dreeshen’s dirty work for him.

The thing is… no one asked them to.

There is a phrase that is supposed to guide the work of public servants: “Fearless advice, loyal implementation.”

The meaning is straightforward. As public servants, the job demands of you an uncompromising commitment to bringing forth the best, most well-researched, evaluated, and measured response reflecting the complex trade-offs that accompany city building.

This is fearless advice.

But in our democracy, the “public” part of public servant is represented by the elected officials to whom society has given the power to act on their behalf. A public servant must be committed to the will of the public – and that means that whatever the direction that democratically elected bodies provide, a public servant must follow through on it.

This is loyal implementation.

So why does it seem like more often than not, the advice public servants give is increasingly fearful, and the follow through on direction is anything but loyal.

Because politicians are bullies.

Every politician is guilty of it. Even the kindest politician will be confronted by an issue where they feel the need to flex their power to demand an outcome from bureaucrats regardless of the recommendation in front of them.

Easier to steamroll public servants than to use democratic process

In a system of checks and balances where politicians need to get majority support from other elected officials, it is becoming more attractive to bulldoze administration than to do the work, debate your peers, and get a motion moved through the democratic process.

Bully politicians will belittle administrators, question their knowledge and expertise, sic the public on them, and, to make matters worse, do it all on a stage – online, in the media, or in legislative and council chambers.

The goal is to make it so hard to recommend what administrators have found is the best path forward that they will instead choose an easier path, thus appeasing the bullies.

Working in the proximity of a politician with a bone to pick is a burnout job. When careers and reputations get put on the line, many administrators will do whatever they need to do to keep from being put in front of a political firing squad. Sometimes that means abandoning expert advice, minimizing the scale of a problem, or even putting milquetoast recommendations in front of elected officials – not because it is the best solution for the problem, but because they’re hoping that this will stave off another public whipping.

Looking north to Edmonton, in another chapter of the battles over bike lanes, city administrators shot themselves in the foot last week by recommending changes to city council’s direction on bike lane expansion, despite no direction having been given to them to do it.

Edmonton’s Mayor Andrew Knack questioned why administration even brought these recommendations forward. Administration claims it was because of community concerns (which is just a code word for parking), construction (which is just a code word for inconvenience), and of course, the anticipated changes that will stem from Minister Dreeshen’s threats to crack down on bike lanes.

Edmonton’s administration is primarily trying to protect itself from what will be a protracted battle with Devin Dreeshen, the Alberta Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors, who is gearing up to introduce legislation to adjust, stop, and rip up bike lanes across Alberta.

Their eyes were on Toronto, where the same battle has been waged for the last two years.  Edmonton administrators watched as professional recommendations from their peers got thrown aside in favour of a culture war where no one wins, but many people lose.

Knack pointed out to administration that they have all the delegated authority to deal with the concerns being raised by constituents about parking, to minimize and manage the negative impacts of construction, and most importantly, to provide the expertise to ensure that every new pathway is thoughtful and well designed.

“Frankly, I’m actually not sure what purpose this report actually serves because council has been clear about direction and admin already has things within their delegated authority,” Knack said.

Cracks showing in the resolve of public servants

So why did they bring it forward if it served no purpose? In my experience, administration brought this report forward to force a political decision. They were trying to end a fight before one even started. They were trying to be political, rather than public servants.

When administrations start trying to make political decisions on behalf of elected officials, it is a betrayal of public service.

It is the responsibility of public servants to loyally implement the direction of the elected body, and that means ignoring the blistering of elected officials from any order of government, no matter how bold or threatening their statements are. At the municipal level, a public servant is in service to all of council, and only a decision of council should be considered strong enough to change the direction given to administration.

But on this issue of bike lanes, Edmonton’s administration took political direction from the threats of an elected official from another order of government. The system will break if this is how decisions are pushed forward. The cracks are clearly showing.

While this example may be about something as unsexy as bike lanes (although I do love a well-placed bollard), administrations do this more than many are willing to admit. I’ve seen it done on housing, on arts and culture, on policing, on budgeting, where the recommendations put forward were far from administrations’ best recommendations, but rather, simply the safest.

It is increasingly challenging to be a public servant; politics is getting more toxic every day. But the more administrations abandon the principles and practices of public service, the more power we give to bullies who would rather demean than govern.

For politicians who are bullies?

More people must wake up to the fact that our elections are increasingly rewarding a toxic style of leadership that is stripping the appeal of public service away.

Until then, administrators must double down on their commitment to public service.

Fearless advice, loyal implementation.