POL 151 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Job Performance
24 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Administrative Justice (The OmbudsOffice)
“People often ask us what we do, who complains to us and what they complain to us about. Our
investigations are varied and range from helping people with issues relating to homes and
families to complaints dealing with work and business and professional associations. The
complaints come from every region in British Columbia, from people of all ages and involve
large, well-known authorities to less familiar commissions and boards…Our role is not to be an
advocate for one side or another, but for administrative fairness for everyone.”—The Office of
the Ombudsperson, B.C.’s Independent Voice for Fairness, Annual Report 2012/2013.
OmbudsOffice: the position
• The office is a “supervisory” agency that exists in both the public sector—i.e. government/the
state—as well as in private sector iterations—i.e. banks, universities, utilities, etc.
• Believed to originate in Sweden in 1809, but there are other historical examples of similar
institutions in Ancient China, traditional Aboriginal Societies and the Roman Empire
• deals with problems in administrative practice—particularly perceived wrongdoings derived
from maladministration, administrative injustice or administrative malpractice
• acts as a means of impartial, unbiased explanation or persuasion or resolution with regard to
bureaucratic decisions that are perceived to result in mistakes, abuse, discrimination or delays
• Conceived as independent of the executive and legislative functions of the state, the ombuds
role operates at arm’s length from the government and functions as a citizen advocate of “last
resort” in tackling perceived wrongs committed by the public administration at the expense of
individual citizens
• independence of the position is typically reinforced by the limitations of the job’s influence in
that it may try to resolve a complaint by recommending changes to a regulation or practice or
procedure, but it cannot force a resolution
• the ombuds role is most influential in how it brings to light grieved conflicts or issues and acts
as a mediator between the grieving party and the organization in question—i.e. it's much more
of a persuasive or negotiative approach than a coercive one
• For an ombudsperson to have any legitimacy, governments and organizations must recognize
that they have to respect and at least consider its recommendations to resolving disputes
• beyond suggesting changes to an organization’s status quo or to going to the media to
publicize a perceived injustice, it's always up to the object of a complaint to accept what an
ombudsperson has to say.
OmbudsOffice: a brief historical timeline
1713 Chancellor of Justice—Sweden foreshadows the ombuds concept by creating the position
of “Chancellor of Justice” to ensure that regulations and laws were respected and that civil
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
servants properly performed and executed the duties, expectations and responsibilities of their
respective jobs.
1809- 1919 The Incubation Period—originally established in1809, the Swedish ombudsman
model possessed many of the same key administrative features & characteristics of today’s
Ombudspositions
1. Position was deemed an Officer of the Legislature and thus independent of the executive,
though appointed and answerable to the legislature
2. Position was envisaged as an impartial investigator—as well as unaligned to political
parties of either the government or opposition persuasion
3. Its process of investigation and resolution was largely informal
4. Entrusted/empowered to instigate investigations on its own initiative
5. The position had the power to recommend action, but not compel it
*Sweden’s ombudsman was the world’s sole example of such an office/process until 1919 when
Finland incorporated an ombudsman position into its constitution.
1955-1966 The ‘Warm-Up’ Period
The Swedish Ombuds model began to spread across Europe as Denmark became the third
adopter of the process in 1955
1957: Great Britain mulls the creation of an ombudsoffice, but shelves the idea until 1967 on
the grounds that the Ombuds role was perceived as too much of an intrusion upon the
traditional dynamic of MP/constituency relations
1962: Norway becomes the fourth country to establish an ombudsoffice which was
subsequently followed by New Zealand which became both the first Anglo American and first
Commonwealth country to embrace the Ombuds concept through the creation of the position
of “Parliamentary Commissioner”
1965: Simon Fraser University becomes not only the first entity in Canada to create an
ombudsperson position, but also the first institution of its kind in North America to establish
such an office
The Ombudsmania Era (1967 – Present)
1964: Nova Scotia is the first government in Canada to consider establishing a provincial
ombudsoffice, but declines to do so out of concern that such a position would undermine the
relationship between MLA and citizen
1967: Alberta and New Brunswick join other more worldly jurisdictions like Hawaii, the
United Kingdom, Mauritius and Guyana in the global “ombudsrush” by creating the first
Canadian provincial ombudsoffices
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
People often ask us what we do, who complains to us and what they complain to us about. Our investigations are varied and range from helping people with issues relating to homes and families to complaints dealing with work and business and professional associations. 1809- 1919 the incubation period originally established in1809, the swedish ombudsman model possessed many of the same key administrative features & characteristics of today"s. *sweden"s ombudsman was the world"s sole example of such an office/process until 1919 when. Finland incorporated an ombudsman position into its constitution. The swedish ombuds model began to spread across europe as denmark became the third adopter of the process in 1955. 1957: great britain mulls the creation of an ombudsoffice, but shelves the idea until 1967 on the grounds that the ombuds role was perceived as too much of an intrusion upon the traditional dynamic of mp/constituency relations.
