Item	Page #
Introduction……………………………………………………	4
Methodology…………………………………………………..	4
Organizational Theory and Behaviour………………………...	5
Leadership within the Community Services Branch………….	13
Human Resource Management………………………………..	17
Economics and Policy Analysis……………………………….	22
Budgetary Process and Finance Issues………………………..	29
Administrative Law and Ethics………………………………..	37
Research and Program Evaluation…………………………….	44
Democratic Governance and Public Participation…………….	51
Bibliography…………………………………………………..	57

Figure One - Department of Community and Transportation Services Organizational Chart………………………...	9
Figure Two - Organizational Structure of the Community Services Branch……………………………………….	10
Figure Three - Department of Community and Transportation Services 2001/02 Fiscal Year Operating and Maintenance Appropriations………………………….	33
Figure Four – Distribution of 2001/02 Operating and Maintenance Expenditures…………………………….	34
Figure Five – 2001/02 O&M Expenditures by Community Services Branch in relation to other Branches………...	34
Figure Six – 2001/02 Community Services Branch Capital Budget…………………………………………………	35
Figure Seven - Excerpt from The Planning Institute of British Columbia Code of Professional Conduct……………...	42
Figure Eight - Sources of Internal Invalidity………………….	45
Figure Nine - Excerpt from "Speech from the Throne - Second Session of the Thirtieth Yukon Legislative Assembly……………………………………………...	54

Table One – Policy Responses/Directions Arising From Economic Problems…………………………………...	25
Table Two - Government of Yukon Policy Development Model………………………………………………….	26

The purpose of this paper is fourfold: i) to present a brief theoretical overview of the central issues and concepts in public administration, ii) to describe the functions and operations of a public agency, iii) to analyze the agency and explain how these central issues and concepts are manifested, and iv) where appropriate, to identify how agency functions and operations could be improved by better or more thoroughly applying theory to practice.

The study of public administration embodies a broad range of disciplines including psychology, sociology, philosophy and management sciences. While the intradependant nature of public administration tends to defy the convenient classification of its elements into components, public administration is generally recognized to consider concepts such as organizational theory, organizational behaviour, leadership, management, human resource management, economics, policy analysis, budgetary process, finance issues, administrative law, ethics, the practice of social research, program evaluation, democratic governance, and public participation.

The agency selected for this paper is the Government of Yukon, Community Services Branch. Positioned within the Municipal and Community Affairs Division of the Department of Community and Transportation Services, the Community Services Branch employs eleven staff for the sake of promoting local government, supporting municipalities and providing municipal type land planning services to both incorporated and unincorporated rural Yukon communities.

Throughout this paper, the term policy is used extensively. While the use of the term is occasionally qualified, policy (in the context of this paper) should be interpreted broadly and considered to address the decisions and actions of the agency in question.

The approach to information collection for this paper varied. Information for the theoretical overview of central issues and concepts in public administration was obtained through an extensive review of texts, articles and essays on the body of knowledge along with a detailed review of course notes obtained through the author's enrollment as a student in the Masters of Public Administration program at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1998 to 2001.

Information required for the description of the functions and operations of the Community Services Branch was obtained through field research, consisting of interviews with branch personnel, researcher observations, and file reviews. In terms of the interviews conducted, every available branch member participated along with some individuals from outside the agency. Interviewees were also used to support or refute the interviewer's observations of the Branch.

The contents of this paper are organized under the following headings: Organizational Theory and Behaviour, Leadership within the Community Services Branch, Human Resource Management, Economics and Policy Analysis, Budgetary Process and Finance Issues, Administrative Law and Ethics, Research and Program Evaluation, and Democratic Governance and Public Participation. Given the nature of public administration, some overlap in content among these sections is unavoidable.

In an effort to understand our immediate environment, and with a view to achieving certain ends, a great deal of study of organizations, their structure, and the actions of individuals and groups within organizations has occurred during the past century.

Among the first to conduct a comprehensive study on the structure of organizations and the relationship between structure and organizational efficiency was Frederick Taylor. His work in the early 1900's was of a scientific nature and through workplace experimentation, he identified the most efficient structures and functions within an organization or process. Taylor's "Structuralist" approach would prove popular with organizational theorists for many years and serve as the basis for "Classical" theorists such as Henri Fayol and, most famously, Max Weber who espoused the notion of "bureaucracy" as the basic form of an organization.

The bureaucratic ideal promoted by Weber, a German sociologist, has its origins in principles of social equity (i.e. consistent treatment of workers) and focussed on maximizing organizational efficiency through the promotion of predictability, order and precision. According to Gordon (1999), basic tenets of the bureaucratic ideal include:

• Each employee within an organization having a specified and official area of responsibility that is assigned relative to the competence and experience of that employee,
• Each employee having only one supervisor, thus creating a system of orderly supervision and subordination,
• The use of written directions from managers to employees, including manuals containing rules and procedures for employee conduct,
• The provision of extensive training for managers and employees alike with a view to enabling them to adequately perform their employment responsibility,
• Promotion based on achievement, and
• The expectation that managers will be consistent and that rules will be complete and learnable.

These basic, underlying foundations of bureaucracy would appear reasonable to most and yet present day bureaucracies are often criticized for being overly regimented, unresponsive, and inflexible organizations that area unable to meet the requirements of unique situations. The problems of bureaucracy have been equated to a situation of "not being able to see the forest through the trees". In this regard, bureaucracies are at times said to be institutions whose processes perpetuate their existence, thus resulting in the "end" becoming the "means".

As Structural perspectives, the Scientific Management, Classical and Bureaucratic schools of organizational theory are each based on positivist thinking and view organizations and individuals in a mechanistic paradigm. As a reaction to such thinking, behaviorally-orientated perspectives, focussing on the human element present within organizations, arose shortly after in the field of organizational theory.

Most notable among these schools of thought are the "Human Relations" school and the "Leadership" school – the former best known for the Hawthorne Effect and the latter best know for leadership thinking in terms of Theory X and Theory Y. Given the attentiveness to the individual in both the Human Relations and Leadership schools, it is clear that the concentration of focus among organizational theorists shifted drastically over the years – presumably as a societal response to heightened values of individuality. This change in focus served as a paradigm shift in organizational theorizing away from previous thinking which failed to acknowledge the importance of individuals within an organization.

Not surprisingly given the history of thought with respect to organizational theory, contemporary thinking promotes an integrative approach which attempts to accommodate both Structuralist and Behavioral perspectives. This paradigm is characterized by the "Systems Theory" and the "Contingency Theory". Within the Systems Theory, there exists a recognition that every system is comprised of a number of inter-related, interdependent, and interacting sub-systems. In its essence, it is an assertion that organizations ought to be viewed as open systems in a state of constant flux using a transformation process to arrive at outputs.

Similar to the Systems Theory in a recognition of the open nature of an organization, the Contingency Theory is arguably a more complete view than any of its predecessors of how organizations function. The Contingency Theory encourages managers to find the best fit between an organization’s structure and the situation in which the organization exists. Thus, it promotes the view that an organization’s structure should be contingent upon the situation. In this regard, certain situations may call for rigid, formalized bureaucratic structures while others may call for flexible, organic ones.

As alluded to in the Contingency Theory, no discussion of organizational theory would be complete without consideration of concepts of organizational behaviour and the inter-relatedness of organizational behaviour and structure. Defined as "the part of its internal environment that incorporates a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values that organizational members share and use to guide their functioning"(Gordon, 1999, p.342), organizational culture can be said to be a description of how individuals within an organization behave. Describing an organization’s culture involves identifying the shared values and basic assumptions of its members along with identifying artifacts that underlie cultural assumptions (i.e. visible manifestations such as dress codes or the physical organization of offices). In this regard, an organizational culture can be, among other things, innovative, stable, people orientated, outcome orientated, and/or detail orientated (Gordon, 1999). Furthermore, an organizational culture can be based on communication, training and development, rewards, risk-taking, planning and/or teamwork (Gordon, 1999). Regardless of the exact nature of a culture within an organization, its importance should not be diminished as culture can be extremely influential in the extent to which an organization achieves its mission and strategic goals.

Inasmuch as organizational culture is a product of organizational structure, structure too is a reflection of culture. Depending on the environment and situation of an organization in light of its desired outputs, certain cultures should be sustained, while others should be re-directed. And, like structure, culture can be managed - albeit with some difficulty.

At the most basic level, a culture can be created by hiring and socializing new members who will fit the desired culture and removing others who do not fit such a culture. Young (2000) suggests some more refined techniques to manage culture, specifically: formulating strategies in such a way that the desired cultural agenda is reflected both in the process of strategy creation and the content of the strategy (i.e. the defining of a vision statement); managing the flow of information so that the desired culture permeates communications (i.e. sharing versus controlling); employing motivational tools and engaging rewards that are consistent with organizational values (i.e. production incentives or customer service awards); approaching functions like budgeting and reporting in such a way that the desired levels of employee autonomy are apparent; and, managing conflict among workers using techniques and approaches that reflect a culture of choice.

The Community Services Branch exists within a highly structured organizational environment and is itself very structured - at least it appears to be at first glance. In order to appreciate the nature of organizational structure within the Branch, consideration must be given to the organizational structure of the Government of Yukon.

The Government of Yukon is comprised of a number of ministries known as departments. Within each department, an elected member of the territorial legislature is assigned to the position of Minister by the Premier of the government (who is the leader of the political party possessing the most seats in Territory's legislature). The minister of a department has extensive powers and decision making authority and is advised in the political aspects of his or her department by an Executive Assistant while at the same time assisted in the administrative and operational aspects of the departments functioning by Deputy Minister.

In a case of clear and defined reporting structures, Deputy Ministers in each department direct one or more Assistant Deputy Ministers who in turn direct branch Directors. In this manner, Directors are subordinate and responsible to Assistant Deputy Ministers who are subordinate and responsible to a Deputy Minister who is in turn responsible to the Minister.

Within each branch headed by a Director, program staff may report directly to the Director though in some cases, the position of Manager exists for the purpose of providing an intermediary between program staff and the Director. To a large degree, organizational structure reflects spans of control wherein each Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister, Director, and Manager is the immediate supervisor of between three and seven subordinates.

In addition to program orientated branches, departments within the Government of Yukon typically contain central agencies such as a Human Resources Branch, a Policy Analysis Unit and a Finance Section. And like the program orientated branches, these central agencies are managed by a Director who reports to either an Assistant Deputy Minister or directly to the Deputy Minister.

In a direct reflection of the nature of organizational structure described above, the Community Services Branch is contained within the Municipal and Community Affairs Division of the Department of Community and Transportation Services. The Community Services Branch is led by a Director who reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs who in turn reports to the Deputy Minister of Community and Transportation Services. As one of the largest departments within the Government of Yukon, there are numerous levels within the Department.

Following is the organizational structure of the Department of Community and Transportation Services (Figure One):

Organizational structure within the Community Services Branch is quite well defined and is reflective of the fact that there are essentially two program areas within the Branch, one providing support to local governments and the other providing land planning services to both incorporated and unincorporated communities. In this regard, the Branch includes four Community Advisors who report directly to the Director. The Branch also contains a two Land Use Planners, a Subdivision Planner, and a Cartographer all reporting to the Manager of Land Planning who in turn reports to the Director. An Administrative Assistant also exists within the Branch for the purpose of aiding all Branch staff but who reports directly to the Director.

Following is the organizational structure of the Community Services Branch:

As an assessment of structure within the Branch as a subset of the Department, it should be noted that while the hierarchical organization is rather rigid with a very formalized reporting structure, it is designed as such in order to foster accountability of the Department to the Minister. In many regards, this structure reflects notions espoused by Weber in his bureaucratic ideal vis-à-vis clear divisions of labour and a defined reporting structure.

While it is difficult to define an organization's culture with any degree of precision, it is possible to describe aspects of the organizational culture existing within the Community Services Branch. For one, although not captured within a specific mission statement, Branch staff appear to share a common assumption that the value of their work is found in efforts to foster community development and promote healthy communities. Staff within the Branch have been known to view this as something of a noble purpose.

Additionally, a great deal of effort on behalf of the Branch's Director and the Manager of Land Planning has been placed in promoting a culture based on customer service and encouraging Branch staff to embrace the basic assumption that the Branch exists to serve citizens. This attempt at fostering a customer-focussed culture is evident in making training resources available for customer service training workshops and basing decision making within the Branch on criteria such as improving customer service.

Another aspect of organizational culture evident within the Branch is a shared assumption that government agencies should be "open and transparent". This notion is promoted by Branch and Division leadership in a manner similar to that described above wherein fostering notions of openness and transparency in dealing with the public are values utilized in decision making.

Within the Community Services Branch, there is also a strong cultural tendency towards flexibility which can be said to be somewhat ironic in light of the highly structured nature of the organization. This tendency towards flexibility can be found in the relatively loose adherence of staff and management to the organizational structure for reporting purposes. That is, depending on the situation, staff within the Branch freely communicate or report directly to the Assistant Deputy Minister thus bypassing the formal reporting process. Likewise, the Director may at times interact directly with land planning staff as opposed to channeling communications through the Manager of Land Planning.

Flexibility as an aspect of culture within the Branch is also evident in the existence of formalized "flex-time" programs. Within these programs, staff are able to work slightly longer than normal working days over the span of nine days and then take the tenth day off (operational restrictions considered).

Of the particularly notable aspects of organizational culture within the Community Services Branch, the last to be mentioned is the shared value of collegial approaches existing within the Branch. This cultural dimension, cherished by staff, is evident through informal, team-based decision making which typically occurs in spontaneous gatherings of staff as orchestrated by management within the Branch in response to a particular problem or issue.

Reflecting on the cultural aspects of the Community Services Branch in light of the organizational structure in place within the Government of Yukon and also within Department of Community and Transportation Services, it can be said that individuals within the Branch act in a formal, somewhat rigid manner primarily respective of organizational structure in some instances and in an informal, somewhat flexible manner reflective of the Branch's culture in other situations. This is reflective of the notion of Contingency based organizational theory wherein it is suggested, among other things, that organizational behaviour ought to reflect the nature of the situation

So much has been written on the topic of leadership in both the private and public sector that an individual would be hard pressed to find a book, article, or presentation on management that does not address the topic. This has become strikingly apparent in recent decades as organizations, individuals and society have increasingly turned to their leaders in the hope of coping with, or capitalizing on, a rapidly changing market place and the evolving expectations of public institutions.

Attempting to define leadership is a dissertation onto itself. However, a simple yet useful way to consider leadership is by assessing the evidence of a "vision" and the achievement of "results". That is, a leader is generally someone who can instill a vision into an agency in such a way that the agency achieves desired results. Whether this vision is created by the leader or whether the leader simply inspires others to adopt a vision is not as significant as is the fact that the leader creates an environment that is driven by a clearly communicated vision. That being said, a vision by definition incorporates an end and as such, a fundamental aspect of leadership is ensuring desired results are achieved.

In consideration of the preceding paragraph, notions of leadership are often used to juxtapose notions of management. While leadership is said to be long-range focussed, strategic and visionary, management is said to be scientific, process orientated, day-to-day focussed and serving to ensure a level of order is maintained within an organization. To use a metaphor coined by Osborne and Gaebler (1993) in their management doctrine Reinventing Government, management is akin to rowing a boat while leadership infers steering the boat - a leadership style being the rudder and a vision being the destination and the manner in which the boat will move forward.

Much speculation has occurred with respect to the source of leadership ability. Early views in this field held that a successful leader was born with attributes enabling him or her to be a good leader. In this sense, notions were common during the 1940's and early 1950's that traits such as intelligence, persistence, self-confidence, alertness and preference for control set leaders apart from non-leaders. As a reaction to this type of thinking, contrasting theories of leadership evolved shortly after which espoused the notion that a leader's behaviours, rather than their traits, were what defined their ability as a leader.

This behaviourial approach to viewing leadership served as an early basis for defining the foci of leaders (i.e. leaders possessing either a primary orientation to people or a primary orientation towards tasks). This dichotomy is still prevalent today in both folk and more-scientific approaches to describing a leader's style.

While trait and behaviourial theories of leadership strive to identify the basis of leadership, the source of a leaders power can be said to have its origins in either "position power" (i.e. authority granted via organizational structures) or "personal power" (i.e. authority given to an individual by others - usually a result of an ability to influence through personality characteristics like persuasiveness or charisma). That being the case, a leader within an organization is not necessarily one who by nature is in a senior position within an organization. Rather, leadership can occur at any level of an organization and can at times have the effect of striving for results not necessarily desired by senior management. In this sense, there is often a leadership struggle amongst individuals within an organization as certain leaders across an organization may have competing values and visions for that organization.

The study of leadership ought not be undertaken in isolation of the study of motivation as a leader's understanding of what motivates his or her followers is imperative in achieving desired ends. Most famous of all theories of motivation is "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". Within this model, individuals are said to have levels of needs that they strive to satisfy. Maslow categorizes these needs as physiological, safety/security, belongingness/love, esteem and self-actualization. He describes these needs in the context of a hierarchy and notes that they must be satisfied in ascending order. The application of this framework to motivation arises from the notion that workers are most motivated and productive while satisfying higher order needs. Thus if a leader can create an environment where worker's needs for belongingness/love, esteem, and self-actualization are being met, they are thought to be at their most motivated and productive levels. At least so the theory goes.

However, notwithstanding the value of the above discussion, it would be ideologically shortsighted and a gross oversimplification to state that leadership ability, power, or an individual's motivations arise exclusively from one source or another or to speak of these matters in absolute terms. In contrast, a variety of factors are likely to influence these attributes.

In addition to leadership theorizing, identifying the source of a leader's power, and considering the motivations of individuals, much of the literature on leadership focuses on describing leadership styles. Goleman (2001) identifies six leadership styles, describes each, and classifies them in terms of the overall impact they have on an organization. In this manner, he refers to a "coercive" style within which a leader functions so as to demand immediate compliance with directives issued by the leader; an "authoritative" style wherein a leader mobilizes individuals towards a common vision; an "affiliative" style characterized by a leader who builds harmony and emotional bonds among organizational members; a "democratic" style within which a leader develops consensus among organizational members by virtue of their participation in decision-making; a "pacesetting" style wherein a leader leads exclusively by example and promotes a "do as I do" ethic; and, lastly, a "coaching" style which involves a leader focusing on developing organizational members for the future.

Goleman (2001) contends that, as far as having a desirable impact on an organization goes, the affiliative, democratic and coaching styles are positive while the authoritative style is mostly positive. In contrast, he contends that coercive and pacesetting styles have largely negative impacts on the climate of an organization.

However, it would be a normative assertion to proclaim one leadership style as better than the others. Accordingly, contemporary thinking on leadership suggests that some styles are more appropriate than others in certain situations and that a leader's style should reflect the situation at hand. In this manner, excellence in leadership is the ability to use a collection of distinct styles (sometimes more than one style at time) and to possess the ability to switch easily, freely and seamlessly among styles. To an extent, this ability can be learnt by leaders, especially if they are willing to experiment with various styles and employ new techniques. Goleman (2001) cites one such example by identifying coercive leaders as those who could benefit from improving their "emotional intelligence" through focussing on the development of personal competencies such as self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skill.

Leadership within the Community Services Branch is a defining characteristic of the Branch. Formal authority to direct staff and operations is vested in both the Director and Manager of Land Planning positions in the rational, structural sense (see Figure Two). In this design, both the Director and Manager lead and manage, although the Director is ultimately responsible for ensuring results are met. By design or by circumstance, the Director and Manager have somewhat similar leadership and management styles.

Throughout the Branch, perceptions vary on both the substance and style of the Director's approach to leadership and management. In this light, some employees characterize him as being disinterested in aspects of his position while others view his approach as empowering and enabling.

What is certain about the Director's position is that it contains both a leadership and management focus. In the context of management, the Director is responsible for ensuring the daily functions and operational requirements of the Branch (budgeting, Ministerial briefing notes, inter-agency communications, etc.) are met. It is arguable that the management functions of the Director's position are performed only to the degree that basic requirements are met. On occasion, staff become frustrated with long "turn around times" and vague, limited direction from the Director. Deadlines are missed with some regularity and long delays for project approvals from the Director are common. Some Branch staff have suggested that the Director lacks enthusiasm for the management type functions of his role while others contend the relatively limited attention paid to daily operations by the Director is a reflection of the diverse and varied demands on his time.

If management presents an aspect of the Director's functioning which is lacking in some ways, then leadership presents one that is flourishing. All staff within the Branch cite the Director as being extremely personable, having highly developed inter-personal skills, excellent communication abilities, a good sense of humour, and the ability to view work-related problems in a balanced manner and appropriate context. Throughout the Department of Community and Transportation Services, the Director of Community Services is known for his unique ability to solve complex problems and diffuse difficult situations through his insightfulness, persuasiveness, eloquence and ability to think creatively. He also has a highly developed ability to make all parties in a conflict look good and feel victorious - an invaluable skill in conflict resolution and negotiation.

The Director of Community Services is known to speak out against micro-management and has been observed to vocalize his own decision-making framework as one consciously opposed to the micro-management of his staff. He will provide thorough direction to staff, but only when actively solicited for such direction. This approach, combined with a seeming dislike for Branch meetings and their extremely rare occurrence, may be the reason some Branch personnel characterize the Director as disinterested. However, this same tendency to offer limited direction and act in antipathy to micro-management is seen by the bulk of staff as enabling and respectful of the professional status of personnel within the Branch.

As a leader who may be best described as a "problem solving, resource person" and who acts in such a way as to perpetuate this image, the Director of Community Services' leadership style is most reflective of a "democratic" one with tendencies towards "affiliative" and "coaching" styles with "people orientation" focus. This can be said with a degree of certainty given the collegial approach to problem solving through collective issue identification occurring via informal and impromptu gatherings convened by either the Director or by staff (and including the Director). The Director simultaneously asserts a belief in the value of staff development as a facet of the coaching leadership style as evident in his frequent encouragement of staff to participate in training courses and professional development seminars that will have the effect of furthering their own professional growth (pending operational requirements of course). Lastly, the affliative leadership style is demonstrated by the Director through his personable and respectful manner of interacting with staff which serves to promote a level of harmony in an otherwise stressful work environment.

Though the Branch suffers on occasion from a lack of a defined or articulated vision in the classical sense, staff within the Branch share a collective value of fostering positive community development (an ethos promoted by the Director and arguably pre-existing within most Branch staff) which functions to serve as a de facto vision. And while the Director explains that his hesitancy in facilitating the development of a mission statement for the Branch stems from a fear for the loss of spontaneity in problem solving or policy development potentially arising from defining and adhering to a mission, he also acknowledges that one would be beneficial to the Branch in other regards. Results are being achieved within the Branch in terms of statutes developed, policies accepted, community plans approved, budgets adopted and decisions made, although perhaps not at the rate or in the quantity sought by some within the Branch.

Human resource management may likely be the most prominent aspect of administration given that the function of "employee" permeates every public sector organization, be it a municipal transit service, a territorial finance unit, or a Crown Corporation policy analysis section. For this reason, and through choice or circumstance, human resource management presents a significant focal point for public managers.

Human resource management is said to refer to "the policies, practices and systems that influence employees' behaviour, attitudes, and performance."(Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright, 2000). As such, it incorporates management functions such as forecasting, recruiting, selecting, training, evaluating, compensating, and of course, facilitating employee/employer relations.

In a spirit of quasi-codification under the label of "Strategic Human Resource Management", these functions have been categorized into the following seven "steps": determining human resource needs; attracting potential employees; choosing employees; teaching/preparing; rewarding; evaluating performance; and creating a positive work environment (Noe et al., 2000). Accordingly, Strategic Human Resource Management is said to be "a pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals" (Noe et al., 2000, p.43) and is presumably part of a broader organizational or strategic plan for an agency.

The various aspects of human resource management are worth consideration. In its most basic form, human resource planning includes attempts to forecast organizational demand and labour force supply of potential employees. In strategic human resource management, this type of planning also includes allocating financial resources and determining human resource priorities in such a way that an organization's vision and strategic plan are reflected in its human resource planning. Thus potentially leading to alternative employment scenarios such as downsizing, hiring temporary employees, privatizing, etc. in the event that the overall organizational strategic plan directs and supports such courses of action.

Recruitment, which is an intermediary phase between planning and the actual selection of new employees, serves as something of "buffer" in the human resource management process (Noe et al., 2000). Organizations that actively recruit are interested in increasing the number of applicants for each employment posting, targeting the type of applicants in order to find a match or "fit" between employee and the nature of employment, and increasing the likelihood that an applicant who is offered a position will actually accept that position. While it is common for large corporations in the private sector to actively recruit in an on-going manner with a view to always having an "inventory" of interested applicants, such "strategic" recruiting is rare in the public sector wherein recruiting typically takes the form of advertising specific employment opportunities only when they arise.

A very challenging aspect of human resource management is the selecting the best applicant when filling an employment opportunity. In the hope of doing so, an employer may rely on interviews, ability tests, personality inventories, work samples, or reference checks in attempting to determine how well a potential employee will perform in a position. In varying degrees, each of selection techniques serve as predictive validity indicators - that is, they are independent variables used to assist an employer assess or predict how well a potential employee will function in a position. Unfortunately, such predictive validity indicators often have limited reliability when it comes to projecting performance and as such, human resource managers will often acknowledge and consider their personal feelings and/or impressions towards an applicant in combination with the above noted selection means when hiring.

When the term training is used in human resource management, reference is usually being made to the provision of essential skills and services for new employees in an organization in order to help that employee meet job requirements. However, some also use the term to refer to the notion of furthering the skills of existing employees. Training is often approached in terms of: 1) conducting a "needs" assessment; 2) ensuring employees readiness (attitudes and motivation); 3) identifying learning objectives and training outcomes; 4) ensuring the transfer of training, i.e. management support; 5) selecting training methods; and, 6) evaluating training programs.

With respect to employee development within an agency, much attention in the human resource management field has been paid to the concept of "learning organizations". By definition, learning organizations refer to agencies whose employees are "continuously attempting to learn new things and apply what they have learned to improve product or service quality"(Noe et al., 2000). In this regard, key features of a learning organization are: employees sharing learning with each other; the existence or creation of procedures for gaining and sharing knowledge; employees being encouraged to think critically and test their assumptions or the organizational environment; a system of rewards existing within the organization and supported by management as employees learn new skills; the encouragement of flexibility and innovation among employees in the development of new products and services; and, a focus on ensuring the development of every employee.

A relatively new concept being applied in human resource management arising from notions of strategic human resource management is "performance measurement". This concept equates successful performance of an employee to his or her product or outputs (Noe et al., 2000) and has been said to be "…a process through which managers ensure that employees activities and outputs are congruent with organizational goals"(p.276). Conceivably, performance measurement can be used, along with other evaluative systems, to determine rewards for, and even the compensation of, employees.

It has been said that pay is "a powerful tool for furthering the organization's strategic goals" (Noe et al., 2000, p.388) in that it affects employee attitudes to a large extent. In this light, employees will often evaluate their pay relative to that of other employees and among industry competitors. As such, employee satisfaction with pay is influenced by perceptions of fairness and equity. Not surprisingly, pay, bonuses, and other employment benefits represent the bulk of an organization's operating and maintenance budgets - in some organizations these expenses can represent 90% of such budgets.

Within the Government of Yukon, human resource management functions occur through departmentally centralized human resource agencies, by line managers/directors at the program level, and the Government of Yukon's Public Service Commission (PSC). In this system, the Department of Community and Transportation Services Human Resource section, management within the Community Services Branch and the PSC take a collaborative and coordinated approach to human resource management.

As a central agency, the Human Resource section primarily takes a facilitative/coordinating role in functions such a creating job descriptions, recruiting potential employees, and selecting among candidates. These functions are all undertaken in strict adherence to Government of Yukon policies and procedures defined by PSC. The Director of Community Services and Manager of Land Planning, as line managers, are involved in these stages - but primarily by providing comment and perspectives.

It is the Director of Community Services and Manager of Land Planning however that undertake the day to day motivation, direction, supervision and evaluation of employee performance within the Branch, while the Human Resource section assists with record keeping and by serving as a resource to the Director and Manager.

In addition to the responsibilities listed above, the Public Service Commission also exists to perform human resource management functions such as the processing of appeals, the hearing of grievances, and the negotiating of contracts/collective agreements with the employee's union. The Public Service Commission also administers a complex position classification system that serves to direct employee pay across all departments within the Government of Yukon.

Like all branches within the Department, and in turn all Departments within the Government, the Community Services Branch is constrained in its human resource practices by strict policies and procedures detailed in the Public Service Act and the General Administration Manual. The process of employee selection is probably the clearest example of such constraints. Filling a position is literally known as holding a "competition".

Each position has a detailed "Statement of Qualifications" containing a list of "Essential Qualifications" which are used in the screening process. These Essential Qualifications may include particular educational certificates and/or a set of demonstrated abilities. Only those applicants satisfying the Essential Qualifications for a position will be granted an interview and if, in reviewing applications, no candidate satisfies these requirements, interviews will not take place and additional recruitment for the position will occur.

Within the Government of Yukon, Statements of Qualification also include a list of "Rated Qualifications" (factors assessed through interviews, reference checks, etc.) which are classified into the categories of "knowledge" (for example - general understanding of department roles and mandates), "abilities" (for example - good research, report writing and analytical skills), and "personal suitability" (for example - excellent interpersonal skills). Within each category, items listed are further described as either mandatory or desirable. During interviews, pre-determined questions reflecting the rated qualifications along with "correct" answers for each of these questions are developed by program managers and reviewed by the department’s central agency. Questions are then asked of interviewees by interviewers (usually three) in a panel setting and the responses of candidates are recorded verbatim. Candidates are also often required to provide a work sample or written practical examination (for example – to prepare a letter on behalf of the Minister).

For each question, interviewees’ responses are assigned a point value relative to the correctness and completeness of their response. Points are tallied by all interviewees only after all interviews are competed. In order to "pass" an interview, candidates must score satisfactorily on all questions reflecting mandatory knowledge, abilities and personal suitability. The interviewee scoring the most points in the interview, along with points awarded through an assessment of the work sample or written examination, wins the competition. The competition winner then has his or her references checked by the Human Resource section and the position is offered to the successful candidate. In the event that no interviewee scores the requisite number of points on mandatory questions, a second recruitment and competition is held until a qualified individual can be found.

And while there are benefits of perceived fairness and impartiality associated with this system, it presents a limit, by design, on managers in their ability to rely on and use "instincts", "gut reactions" and personal feelings when selecting employees. In doing so, it can be said to place disproportionate value on interviews, tests, work samples, and other formalized predictive validity indicators which are of questionable reliability onto themselves in forecasting an applicant's employment aptitude.

When it comes to human resource functions such as forecasting, recruiting, training, development, or performance measurement at the Community Services Branch, the approach is far from strategic. As the Branch lacks any overall strategic plan, human resource planning is done without the benefit of a coordinated approach to determining need or allocating resources. The creation of new positions to meet perceived needs is usually accomplished by appropriations for positions through the capital budget planning process. Job descriptions are rarely revised and tend to be done so only by appeal of the incumbent. When vacancies occur through attrition, decisions to fill the position are made based on management perceptions of staffing needs.

There is no strategic approach to training new employees at the Community Services Branch, however, the benefit of training for existing employees is recognized, supported, and promoted. Likewise, while it would be hard to characterize the Branch as a "learning organization" in light of the fact that no systematic focus on knowledge-sharing or group development exists, management does support employees gaining new skills/knowledge and applying them/it to Branch initiatives and customer service.

Within the Community Services Branch, formal performance evaluations occur on an annual basis and are conducted by each employee's direct supervisor while informal feedback from management to staff occurs in varying degrees. However, it would not be accurate to cast employee evaluations as "performance based" as there is no meaningful set of organizational goals or strategic plan against which employee products or outputs can be measured.

And while employees within the Community Services Branch generally feel that they are well-paid in relation to other government positions in the Yukon, questions as to the appropriateness of a particular employment position's classification within the Branch do arise from time to time.

Much focus within the public sector is on policy development and adherence to policy. However, perceptions vary with respect to the meaning of the term policy. Some claim it to be "prudence or wisdom in the management of public affairs" (Wordsmyth, 2001), others proclaim it to be an "organization’s position on issue"(Noble, 2001), while some give the term quasi-scientific meaning with claims that policy is "a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specific situation"(Jenkins in Noble, 2001) or "a definite course or method of action selected among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions"(Websters, 2001).

Perhaps, the most accurate definition of the term policy, as it applies to the public sector is the one provided by Thomas Dye who, in recognition of the broadness of public administration, refers to public policy as "anything a government chooses to do or not to do".

In contrast to the difficulty of finding a readily agreed upon definition of the term policy, most scholars can agree that economics is about attempting to achieve certain goals within the constraints of limited available resources. In this regard, the study of economics is largely focussed on the concept of resource scarcity (time, money, natural resources, etc.) and the decisions people make over the use of these scarce resources.

Economic systems and political ones are closely related. In fact, it is very difficult to isolate economic considerations from political ones as political ideologies are often a reflection of economic goals and vice-versa. That is, command economies with high levels of centralized control over economic production and consumption tend to be reflective of political ideals that espouse notions of equity and social equality. In contrast, free-market economies which tend to focus primarily on efficiency, reflect a political ideal that governments ought to become involved in economic matters only in instances of market failure. This latter ideology, espousing faith in private markets, can be traced back to Adam Smith who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 wherein he promoted the notion that the public interest is best served by encouraging individuals to act in their own self-interest.

Regardless of political ideologies or economic paradigms, rational economic decision making is really about obtaining the greatest level of benefits possible within the scope of available resources – described by some as seeking the "biggest bang for your buck".

When viewing economics in this light, and in consideration of the fact that policy development often involves selecting an option among a host of alternatives, it is not surprising that economics is often proclaimed as a framework well-suited to public policy analysis. The extent of support among some policy analysts for this notion has been proclaimed by Dror (1967) who states that "…the economic approach to decision making views every decision as an allocation of resources between alternatives, that is, as an economic problem"(p.254).

Possibly the most prominent economic tool for policy analysis is the Benefit-Cost Analysis. In simplistic terms, the Benefit-Cost Analysis approach involves an attempt to value every consideration being faced in decision-making. As such, the application of this tool is said to be a rational, systematic technique illuminating all the implications of a policy decision or alternative.

However, to argue that every consideration within a decision-making matrix is easily valued would be to oversimplify the types of issues faced in policy development. This being said, approaches to Benefit-Cost analysis include techniques such as Contingent and Inferential methods of valuation – the former relying on survey techniques to ascertain public perceptions of value and the latter relying studies of human behaviour and the relationship between human actions and some other economic variable to ascertain worth. But regardless of the application of these techniques, even complex economic modeling is hard pressed to accurately project values for many of the variables that may be manifested in decision-making.

Notions of Pareto Efficiency and Pareto Optimality also exist and may serve as frameworks to facilitate decision making for the sake of policy development. In essence, a decision can be said to be Pareto Optimal if the effect of the decision will result in someone being made better off without someone else being made worse off. Consequently, a market is operating in a state of Pareto Efficiency if all resources are being put to their most efficient use and no improvements in efficiency can be made without someone else be made worse off. That is, in decision making Pareto Optimality and Pareto Efficiency can be used to assess the impact of alternatives and the need for government intervention in a market.

Other valuable economic tools for evaluating public policy include measuring the volume of economic activity in an economy, expressed as Gross Domestic Product, or measuring socioeconomic developments in an economy, expressed through Genuine Progress Indicators. And though these two tools may serve to help describe the state of an economy, they are less relevant than the other approaches to economic analysis mentioned in this section when it comes to evaluating policy alternatives of a local nature.

But to argue that policy development should occur using an economic framework for analyzing alternatives is to make a normative assertion. In practice, policy is often set on the basis of political rather than economic considerations. In fact, the extent to which politics pervades policy development and analysis is outlined by Sharkanksy (1992) who cites populism, partisanship, patronage, ideology, professional/technical pre-dispositions, and bureaucratic politics as examples of the types of politics that influence policy development.

Buck (1996) echoes this sentiment but elaborates on the realities of non-rational approaches to policy development in the following quotation: "…public policy is in reality a complex, confused, confusing Rube Goldberg device into which an infinite variety of ingredients are poured, and out of which comes a surprise"(p.34).

Notwithstanding the above, in an economy where efficiency represents the primary economic goal, government intervention in a market is defensible only in cases where a market fails. Such failure can occur for a variety of reasons including (Stiglitz and Boadway, 1997):

1. Lack of Competition/Incomplete Markets - markets with limited suppliers (monopolies for example) do not function efficiently as a lack of competitors allows suppliers to produce fewer goods and to sell those goods at higher prices than would be the case in a competitive market.
2. Externalities - by-products of economic outputs that directly affect an individual or firm but for which neither the individual nor the firm pays (pollution being the most common example of a public good).
3. Pure Public Goods - goods that are both non-rivalrous and non-excludable (national defense being the best example). These types of goods result in market failure by virtue of an inability to exclude users which presents pricing barriers for would be providers. This is commonly referred to as the "free-rider" phenomena wherein consumers do not feel compelled to purchase a good if they know they will benefit from it anyway (i.e. a form of "rent" seeking behaviour).
4. Information Asymmetry - Perfect competition by nature assumes all individuals and firms within a market have complete information about goods and pricing. In reality however, different parties in a market have varying levels of information thus affecting producer or consumer appreciation of scarcity which in turns affects the practical application of principles of supply and demand.

As a reaction to these sources of market failures and a host of others, governments may respond by implementing a variety of policy options containing a host of directions (see Table One).

A great portion of the work of the Community Services Branch is in the area of producing policy documents. Ranging from the creation of statutes to the drafting of regulations to the writing of land use policy, the Community Services Branch focuses on a variety of policy development initiatives.

Current examples of policy development within the Branch include: facilitating the review and revisions to the Yukon Municipal Act; developing a rural services policy pertaining to Yukon incorporated municipalities; establishing a protocol for municipal grants-in-lieu of taxes; managing the development of "local area plans" to guide land use in unincorporated Yukon communities; and, defining and reviewing development controls on private and public lands in both incorporated and unincorporated Yukon communities.

In this regard, staff from the Community Services Branch take a variety of roles in the development of policy depending to a large extent on the type of policy initiative. In matters of creating or reviewing statutes, Branch staff usually serve on government committees to provide technical advice to legislative drafters. In contrast, when it comes to the development of policy of a non-statutory nature, Branch staff often take the lead role in drafting policy. Of course, the nature of responsible government in the Yukon limits the ability of public administrators to enact public policy, and rather, dictates that the role of the Community Services Branch in matters of public policy development is always of an advisory nature wherein staff make recommendations to publicly elected political bodies.

It should also be noted that most of the policy development within the Department of Community and Transportation Services occurs in a collaborative manner between line agencies (such as the Community Services Branch) and central agencies within Department, namely the Planning, Policy and Evaluation Unit.

Within the Government of Yukon, program areas (such as the Community Services Branch) and central agencies are encouraged to approach policy analysis and the development of a policy recommendation in the following manner:

1. Identify the policy issue
2. Identify values and develop guiding principles for the policy issue
3. Define the purpose or goal of the policy
4. Consider options for the policy instrument
5. Review the policy environment
6. Develop a research plan
7. Develop options
8. Analyze the options
9. Select an option
10. Prepare an implementation and evaluation strategy
11. Take recommendation forward for a decision

Of course the approach to actual policy approval and the bodies involved in obtaining approval varies greatly depending on the nature of the public policy initiative at hand. In this regard, there are several review committees and central agencies available to provide policy analysis, advice or direction before a recommended policy is presented to elected officials for hopeful adoption or alteration. Likewise the form of public policy within the Government of Yukon can vary and may include: Statutes, Regulations, Ministerial Directives, Cabinet Minutes, Policies, etc.

An important aspect of policy development within the Branch can be found in the organization's formalized approach to policy analysis. That is, policy initiatives to be considered by elected officials are described within policy documents known as "Memorandums for Cabinet Decision". These documents largely serve to provide background information to elected officials on a public policy initiative and by nature, require an analysis of alternatives and a suggested recommendation by administration for Cabinet consideration.

There is relatively little emphasis placed on approaching policy development and analysis through the application of detailed economic analysis within the Community Services Branch. That is, while policy analysis documents do require a general description of costs and revenues associated with an initiative, there is rarely any attempt to value the benefits and/or costs of policy alternatives in a systematic manner, i.e. through a formal Benefit-Cost Analysis.

Despite this, a current political priority as expressed through the Premier's Throne Speech and Budget Speech (2001) is economic development within the Territory. That being the case, policy alternatives possessing the perceived effect of generating expanded economic activity (i.e. increasing the Yukon's gross domestic product) will generally be favored over those who have the perceived opposite effect by the political bodies with the Government of Yukon who have the responsibility of adopting public policy.

As described in previous sections of this paper, the Community Services Branch exists to promote local government, support municipalities and provide municipal type land planning services to both incorporated and unincorporated Yukon communities. It is thus arguable that, through this assistance to Yukon communities, the Branch provides a type of public good as the Branch's services conceivably benefit and/or effect all community residents and also given the fact that there are no existing rivals to these services.

However, an important proviso in describing the initiatives of the Community Services Branch as public goods is an acknowledgement that the market in question is a particular community where Branch services are being provided. Of course, not every single resident of the Yukon benefits directly from the Branch's activities in a single community and in this regard, the Community Services Branch may be best described as a provider of merit goods, rather than as a provider of pure public goods given its ability to concentrate services to a particular market (i.e. community).

It should also be noted that any proclamation of the Community Services Branch as a provider of public goods is predicated upon the assumption that the Branch is not competing with rival services offered by other service providers (i.e. local governments). In any such case where other bodies (i.e. municipal councils) have the capacity and mandate to provide rival services, the Branch withdraws or provides support to the applicable body. Thus, the Branch's focus is on providing assistance, rather than competition, to communities or community bodies.

Therefore, in assessing the nature of a public good and describing the Community Services Branch (or any agency) as a provider of such goods, distinctions must be raised with respect to the size and scope of the market being considered in order to accurately identify the type of good being provided.

To a large degree, the financial state of an outgoing government serves as its legacy in the collective memory of the public as few things in politics or public administration are as tangible as the financial status of the public purse. Accordingly, the relative success of a government is often measured in terms of public perceptions of the success or failure of governmental financial management along with the economic impact of its policies upon the citizenry.

The importance of financial management to any organization should not be understated or underestimated. As a management tool, it serves to provide fiscal discipline and control (found in the restraints on expenditures arising from the limits of available finances), management and efficiency (reflecting an agency's efforts to economize their operations), and planning for service requirements (incorporating deliberations as to how services will be delivered) (Mikesell, 1999).

While the nature of financial management in the public and private sector varies, the two are akin in that they rely on analytical, financial and managerial techniques to administer the financial matters of an agency. However, unlike financial management in the private sector characterized by a profit motive, public financial administration faces the additional complications of resource constraints (in terms of the extent to which new revenues can be raised), uncertain ownership of assets, and competing/conflicting objectives.

At the risk of minimizing the influence of the profit motive in the private sector or the significance of uncertain ownership or competing agendas in the public sector, it is fair to say that a distinguishing aspect of financial management in the public sector is the method of raising revenues. Whereas financial exchanges in the private sector are predicated upon notions of the voluntary exchange of goods or services between individuals or firms for remuneration of one sort or another, raising revenues in the public sector is a product of legal, mandatory contributions (in the form of taxation) by individuals or firms, often with the threat of force for non-compliance. Thus, the public, acting as electorate, are extremely sensitive to public sector financing and expenditures.

In its purest sense, the fundamentals of public financial administration can be stated as the following question: "On what basis shall it be decided to allocate X dollars to activity A instead of activity B"(Key, 1940, p.1137). Thus, there is a recognition that decisions must be made on how finite resources will be allocated among a host of alternatives.

However, decisions about public spending and raising revenue are not the product of mechanical rationality. Rather, "they are intensely political and involve personal interests, interest groups, political parties, and the process of representation"(Mikesell, 1999, p.18). In this regard, many argue that fiscal choices made by elected officials have their source in such an official's preference to make financial decisions in a manner that reflects the perceived likelihood of their actions leading to re-election. However, this notion should not necessarily be taken in a negative context. Rather, the spirit of representative government implies that elected officials will make decisions that reflect the public interest by providing the electorate with the services they desire and at the lowest possible cost to society.

As the primary expression in financial administration, great attention is given to budgets and budgeting. In this light, a government's budget can be said to be an observable reflection of acknowledged scarce resources and a statement of how those resources will be allocated among competing alternatives and options.

On the expenditure side of a budget, the size and scope of a government and its services is articulated in terms of "what gets provided, how it gets provided, and who gets it"(Mikesell, 1999, p.39). In contrast, the revenue side of a budget reflects who will be forced to contribute to government programs in order to finance the delivery of public services. In this regard, a budget plays a key role in the provision of public services as the mechanism for defining what public services will be offered and, in turn, how they will be financed. Thus, a public sector budget and the process used in its development serves as a visible, public account of a government's priorities reflecting its political foundations.

Given the complexities of public sector management, the process of creating and adopting a budget can be onerous and cumbersome. While the exact nature of developing budgets varies from organization to organization, all budget development incorporates the common phases of preparation, execution, audit and evaluation (at least in an informal fashion).

Types of budgets and approaches to budgeting also vary greatly in the public sector. Among available methods are the Line Item, Performance, Program, Zero-Based, and New Performance approaches to budgeting. Line Item, Performance and Program budgeting all incorporate similar logic and are described as a "Traditional" form of budgeting. They are however, slightly different in characteristics and orientation. Line Item budgeting is said to focus on what governments buy and thus reflects a control orientation (Mikesell, 1999). Performance budgeting differs slightly from Line Item budgeting in that it focuses on the outputs of governments. As such, it has an activity focus with a management orientation (Mikesell, 1999). Program budgeting is different than Line Item or Performance budgeting as it categorizes expenditures in relation to public goals and accordingly can be said to have a planning orientation (Mikesell, 1999).

These traditional approaches to budgeting have been criticized on the notion that they present an "Incrementalist" style of public financial administration wherein the development of budgets is merely a reflection of previous budgets with minor alterations to accommodate new programs or the increased cost of offering existing ones. In this manner, Traditional budgeting has been likened by Wildavsky and Caiden to an iceberg given that the bulk of a budget lies beneath the surface, out of control by anyone.

In contrast to Traditional budgeting approaches, Zero-Based budgeting came into popularity in the 1970's as a means to reallocate resources in such a way that the greatest public good could be achieved. In its essence, Zero-Based budgeting forces public agencies to justify their budget requests annually with no presupposition that the previous year's allotments will be received. And though this approach mitigates the criticisms of Incrementalism, it requires tremendous resources to implement a budgeting approach that involves starting from scratch with every new budget. Moreover, some public services (police enforcement, fire safety, etc.) could not be "zeroed-out" without causing tremendous societal disruption or even the collapse of government and, as such, the approach can be purely academic at times.

An approach to budgeting that has become increasingly popular in recent years is New Performance Budgeting. This style of budgeting moves away from traditional approaches with their focuses on expenditures and efforts in favour of focusing on results and outcomes. New Performance Budgeting involves identifying defined, measurable targets for program areas within an agency and then assessing that agency's success in light of how successfully the targets were met. In this sense, it is said to embrace budgeting principles more akin to those used in the private sector.

In practical terms however, most public sector agencies develop budgets by incorporating a blend of these approaches.

Unlike Canadian provinces, which possess autonomous powers enshrined through Canada’s Constitution, the Yukon Territory is a construct of the federal government and the Government of Yukon is a delegate of the Government of Canada. As such, the federal Yukon Act is the statutory instrument enabling the Yukon’s Legislative Assembly to pass statutes of its own.

One such territorial statute is the Financial Administration Act. This Act, which is very detailed, serves to define how the Government of Yukon is to manage its financial affairs. Most notable in the Act is the creation of Management Board, comprised of appointed members of Cabinet, which exists to direct the management of public accounts.

When it comes to appropriating funds, proposed budgets are tabled in the Yukon Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Finance (typically during the Spring Session) for all party debate. It is in this forum that opposition politicians publicly scrutinize line items contained within the tabled budget. After debate, the budget is voted on by members of the Assembly, and if passed by the majority, approved under the Appropriations Act.

The significance of passing a budget in this way is that a government which fails to pass a budget or some other interim supply bill in the legislative assembly, is unable to appropriate funds, conduct business and thus unable to govern. Such a phenomenon is known in Parliamentary governments as a vote of non-confidence which traditionally results in the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and a general election call.

For this reason, ruling parties not possessing a majority of seats in the legislature are often forced to form coalitions with opposition members in order to pass budgets or other bills.

Funds approved by the Yukon Legislative Assembly are obtained by departments through the Appropriations Act and items listed within are referred to as "votes". Departments must respect these votes and not overspend the amounts voted.

Budgeting within the Community Services Branch is best described as traditional, predictable and incremental - qualities which may be more or less desirable depending on your perspective.

In an interview with the former Community Services Branch budget administrator, the process of budget development for the Branch was outlined as follows:

• Both operating/maintenance and capital budgets are developed on a yearly basis.
• The budget setting process begins 8 to 10 months in advance of the Minister of Finance’s (typically the Premier) presentation of the budget in the Yukon Legislative Assembly
• Like all Government of Yukon agencies, the Community Services Branch utilizes baseline budgeting in the development of the annual operating and maintenance budget. At the outset of the budget setting process, departments are given direction by the Management Board (a Cabinet-like body) as to whether their baseline budget is to be increased, decreased or to remain constant.
• Under the assumption that no direction is given otherwise, the Branch seeks small increases in operating and maintenance costs so as to reflect "forced growth" items like inflation and labour cost increases arising from collective bargaining agreements with the employees union. For the most part, the operating and maintenance budget is approached in a "status quo" manner.
• Capital requests on the other hand, are approached somewhat differently in that the capital budget is submitted by the Branch in one-year increments but under a five-year plan deliberated upon by staff and management. In this sense, capital priorities can be both a reflection of input by Branch personnel and direction from departmental senior management (i.e. Deputy Minister or Assistant Deputy Minister), the Minister, Cabinet, Management Board, or the Premier.
• After review by Senior Management, Branch budgets are submitted to the Department of Finance's, Management Board Secretariat each December. And after receiving scrutiny and analysis within the Department of Finance, the proposed budget undergoes some "fine tuning" at the political level in the early winter prior to the release of the budget during the Spring Legislative Session for debate.

1. Limitations of staff input into the budget development process

2. Public input occurs after the budget is almost finalized.

Departments approach internal budget development in the absence of formal venues for public input. In fact, it is not until the month or so prior to the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance in the Legislative Assembly that the public is asked to suggest budget priorities. In this sense, there is little opportunity to consider formalized public input in budget development in any meaningful way.

3. There are occasionally periods of time between the expiry of a current budget year-end (March 31 of every year) and the adoption/implementation of a new budget.

To allocate funds for these periods of time, "Provisional Estimates" (also known as warrants) are requested by the Premier from each department. These Provisional Estimates, which have legislated authority and are passed as interim supply bills, are in essence forecasts of funds required for operating expenses and certain capital projects and are used to enable the Government to spend money in the absence of having a budget in place. On occasion, a government can be months into its new fiscal year without having a proper budget in place.

4. Charging Personnel to Operating and Maintenance Budgets

It is not uncommon within the Government of Yukon and Department of Community and Transportation to secure funding for personnel wages under the capital budgeting process. This strategy was first adopted approximately five years ago to mitigate the effect of rising personnel costs and the appearance of government "getting bigger" as associated with a continuously expanding operating and maintenance budget. Presently within the Community Services Branch, two full-time equivalent positions (FTE’s) receive 33% wage funding from capital allocations. This strategy is justified by the Government on the basis that these two positions are orientated towards capital projects.

However, concern arises with respect to the possibility that the Branch may not be allotted sufficient capital appropriations to fund these positions. To date, capital budgeting within the Branch has been approached by clearly identifying those amounts required to fund the two FTE’s mentioned above. In fact, the only capital dollars appropriated in 2001/02 for the Community Services Branch are those required to fund these positions (see Figure Six above).

If nothing else, the practice of masking personnel expenses in the O&M budget is deceptive and illusory.

5. Reliance on Government of Canada for Revenue

Administrative law could be considered the basis of public administration as it provides the legal foundation for governance in defining the power of governments and the authority of public figures. In simple terms, administrative law "deals with the actions of administrators to whom powers have been granted by laws which have been validly enacted under the constitution" (Jones and de Villars, 1999, p.4). Thus, this field addresses issues of jurisdiction and the concepts of delegation, sub-delegation, and inter-delegation and the validity of such acts in light of questions of authority. In essence, administrative law asks the following questions of public institutions and their employees: did the appropriate body grant power to this person to be used in this way?

Like the United States and Australia, Canada is a federal state. As such, a distribution of power, formalized through a constitution, exists between central and regional governments (Hogg, 1997). In the Canadian case, the central authority is the federal Parliament and it follows that the regional authorities are the ten provincial legislatures.

The Canadian Constitution, embodied by the Constitution Act (1982), details the legislative powers and responsibilities of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures in sections 91 and 92 of the Act respectively. In this regard, it should be noted that Canada’s central and regional governments are "coordinate" authorities and that neither is "subordinate" to the other further to the Constitutional provisions of sections 91 and 92. This concept serves as the basis for the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty – i.e. the laws established by a parliament/legislature of a region are supreme in that region.

Of course it is impossible for any single parliament or legislature to enact all the laws necessary to provide governance within its jurisdiction given the breadth and scope of governmental responsibilities. In this regard, "the vast bulk of the business of government in fact takes place by virtue of delegated authority instead of being contained in laws passed by either the Federal Parliament or one of the provincial legislatures (Jones and de Villars, 1999, p.4). As such, parliaments and legislatures will often simply enact a "scheme in outline only" and will delegate authority to a subordinate body to pass laws (Hogg, 1997). In addition to the above, the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty also implies that the legislative branch faces no legal limit on the extent of powers it can delegate to other bodies (Jones and de Villars, 1999) thus making the Doctrine integral to issues of delegation and sub-delegation.

Historically, the delegation of powers is thought to have first occurred in the United Kingdom, as early as the 16^th Century in the form of Royal Decrees issued by Royal Prerogative. The delegation of legislative powers by British Parliament began to occur almost immediately after the creation of that body (Holland and McGowan, 1989).

In matters of judicial review regarding the legality of an act of delegation, parliamentary legislation enabling the action will be examined closely and its validity determined based on an explicit or presumed intent to allow delegation by parliament as evident within the statute. Of course, any parliament could limit a delegate’s power if there was a desire was to do so, simply by not including certain authorities among the list of powers delegated by parliament to the delegate.

The Yukon is not a province under the Constitution and as such does not possess the s. 92 powers enjoyed by Canadian provincial parliaments. Rather, the Yukon is a construct of the federal government and a product of delegation by the Federal Parliament through the federal Yukon Act which serves to create the Yukon Territory and detail the powers of the Government of Yukon.

The delegation of "provincial type" powers roughly corresponding to the powers outlined in s. 92 of the Canadian Constitution by the Federal Parliament to the Government of Yukon, form the basis for the Government of Yukon and are captured within the Yukon Act. However, the Yukon Act does not represent the limit of federal direction given to the Government of Yukon. Section 4 of the Act states that the "Commissioner shall administer the government of the Territory under instructions given by the Governor in Council or the Minister [of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]".

In an example of such direction, the Commissioner of the Yukon was provided with a letter in 1979 by then Minister of DIAND, the Honourable Jake Epp. Minister Epp's letter (commonly known as the Epp letter) was pivotal in the creation of present day governance in the Yukon as the letter provided directions for the establishment of responsible government in the Yukon. In this sense, the Epp Letter allows the Government of Yukon to be run by an elected legislature, identifies provisions for an appointed sub-set of elected representatives to serve in the capacity of Cabinet (and to function as Executive Council), and enables the leader of the majority party in the legislature to be known as Premier.

In consideration of the "delegate" status of the Government of Yukon, any law created by the Government of Yukon is by nature subordinate legislation and must respect the enabling federal legislation and directions from the federal Minister, i.e. The Yukon Act and the Epp Letter.

Within the Government of Yukon, statutes are tabled for readings and debated in the legislature. If passed by a majority vote in the legislature, proposed statutes become territorial legislation. Statutes democratically created by the Government of Yukon are contained within two bound volumes titled Revised Statutes of the Yukon.

Oftentimes statutes provide a legislative framework that is detailed through the passage of regulations under the statute. In each case, the manner in which regulations are developed and approved is specified by the parent statute, but it is typically Cabinet who has the authority to pass regulations pursuant to an act. Once passed by Cabinet, regulations have the force of law.

Unlike other legislative systems, only bodies of elected representatives have the authority to make legislation and pass regulations within the Yukon Territory. These bodies can conceivably be either federal or territorial in origin. Of course case law (or judge made law) from either territorial or federal court systems has the effect of creating law in the territory by virtue of the common law system embraced in Canada and throughout most of the developed world.

The Community Services Branch is the agency primarily responsible for the administration of four different territorial statutes and a host of regulations established under these statutes - namely, the Municipal Act (1998), Area Development Act (1978), Subdivision Act (1996), and Dog Act (1986). Of these statutes, the Dog Act is somewhat antiquated, rarely used, and the topic of only very limited attention within the Branch. In contrast, the Municipal Act, Subdivision Act, and Area Development Act are prominent statutes that each have wide-spread impact across the territory and levels of prominence in the public eye that are arguably unsurpassed by other statutes.

The Municipal Act is a detailed piece of legislation that serves to provide rules and procedures to local governments in the Yukon related to their functions and operations. In this sense, it is the topic of much attention by municipal institutions and citizens within municipalities. Within the Community Services Branch, administering the Municipal Act is the primary responsibility of the Community Advisors. Of course Branch staff does not create the legislation, rather they make recommendations to elected representatives with respect to its content, interpret it for municipalities, and ensure that municipalities follow procedural requirements set forth in the act via the review of bylaws submitted by Yukon municipalities.

The Subdivision Act is a relatively new piece of territorial legislation (1996) which, in combination with the associated Subdivision Regulations, serves to control the manner in which titled parcels of land within the Yukon are re-configured (by legal survey). In essence, the Act defines procedural requirements for the processing of subdivisions and hearing of appeals while the Regulations detail criteria for reviewing subdivision applications. The Subdivision Act applies in most places throughout the Yukon with the notable exception of incorporated Yukon municipalities that have passed their own subdivision control bylaw. The Act and Regulations are triggered when a member of the public or a public agency makes application with the Community Services Branch for a subdivision. Reviewing, processing, and recommending on applications is the primary role of the Subdivision/Land Use Planner within the Branch. Noteworthy is this regard is that fact the authority to approve subdivisions is granted only to the Subdivision Control Officer (i.e. the Assistant Deputy Minister of Community and Transportation Services) under the Subdivision Act.

Whereas the Municipal Act and Subdivision Act/Regulations are up to date and somewhat thorough, the Area Development Act is greatly in need of review. The Area Development Act enables the creation of administration areas outside of municipalities known as "Development Areas" by the Commissioner in Executive Council (i.e. Cabinet). In turn, Cabinet can pass zoning regulations within these areas for the purpose of controlling land uses. The statute was developed in 1978 as an interim measure to address land use conflicts but hasn't been revised since that time. There are a host of regulations for a number of areas established under the Act. Unfortunately, there is virtually no consistency among the various regulations as the statute itself is silent on most aspects related to the creation of zoning regulations (i.e. variances, re-zonings, appeals, split-zoning, etc.). Moreover, the Act contains only limited enforcement provisions and the zoning regulations established under the Act are of marginal utility. Fortunately for the integrity of the Act and the sake of land use management in the Yukon, the Area Development has been identified by both the Community Services Branch and Cabinet for review. However, no indication has been made as of the writing of this paper with respect to whether or not a review of the Act will actually occur.

The concept of public sector ethics along with an examination of the morality of actions by public figures has proven to be a significant growth industry for public administration in recent decades. Gone are the days of blind faith by North American citizens in their democratic institutions - largely due to several mid-20^th Century scandals, such as Watergate, that became prominent when uncovered and subsequently exposed to the electorate (Caiden, 2001).

Generally speaking, the study of ethics and the examination of ethical behaviour involves an assertion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of actions. It is by definition a normative field and attempts to define how individuals (acting both independently and as members of an organization) should or should not act. Much attention in ethics literature is given to attempting to categorize ethics into various field, for example moral ethics, legal ethics, etc. Thompson (1997) attempts to define the study of administrative ethics as "the application of moral principles to the conduct of officials in organizations"(p.444).

In light of this, a focal point of the study of ethics involves attempting to define the relationship between ethics and morals. While the two are unarguably intertwined, it is generally agreed that questions of morality pertain to individuals and their assertions of right and wrong while the field of ethics involves a value-driven examination of the appropriateness of individual actions relative to institutional assertions (either codified or implied) of how individuals ought to act.

When the concept of ethics arises in relation to public administration, it is often viewed in two separate yet related manners. On one hand, citizens tend to view ethics in term of real or perceived "conflicts of interest" by public officials, either elected or appointed. On the other hand, public administrators tend to think about ethics in terms of codes of conducts or standards of behaviour.

With respect to the former, governments are often drawn to the development of conflict of interest legislation or policies as such steps are viewed as an identifiable measure to mitigate corruption (or its potential) and in turn restore faith in government. And while the Government of Yukon does not possess conflict of interest legislation to govern the actions of staff within the Community Services Branch, a "Gift Policy" and "Conflict of Interest Policy" do exist and serve to provide guidelines related to the public acknowledgement of gifts and the documenting of potential conflicts of interest. To a large degree though, these policies tend to affect elected officials rather than Branch staff.

The most prominent policy document in relation to promoting openness and transparency in the Government of Yukon is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. A portion of this act enables citizens the opportunity to obtain and scrutinize government files (confidential third party information excluded) with a view to mitigating public claims of corruption, graft or conspiracy by public officials. Staff in the Community Services Branch take this Act very seriously and readily acknowledge that their files may be reviewed by any member of the public pursuant to provisions set forth in the Act.

With respect to codes of conduct and standards of ethical behaviour, academics, professional bodies, and public administration associations/institutions have spent a great deal of time attempting to define ethical codes and standards and even questioning whether the very nature of public services precludes the development of meaningful ethical norms. Thompson (1997) raises this matter in his article "The Possibility of Administrative Ethics" by referencing two commonly held ethical frameworks and then reacting to each. The first, known as the Ethic of Neutrality asserts that public administrators should act neutrally and follow the spirit and content of public policy along with direction from their superiors rather than acting in congruence with their own moral principles. However, this call for an Ethic of Neutrality is logically problematic as it underestimates the discretion afforded to public administrators, assumes that administrators can freely resign from their office in the event of a moral dilemma, and oversimplifies moral circumstances that are manifested in public office.

The second ethical framework discussed by Thompson is the Ethic of Structure, the tenets of which assert that public administrators exercising a degree of moral discretion cannot be held morally responsible for public policy outcomes or other actions of governments given the nature of policy development and the incremental affect of one individual in setting policy. However, this framework is also logically problematic as it has the effect of saying that individuals are not responsible for the product of their actions and thus it eliminates any notion of accountability to the public.

Having reacted to these two assertions against the development of administrative ethics, Thompson states that the development of administrative ethics is possible on the condition that individual moral judgement and agency (in the literal sense) are not ignored. Frederickson (1997) echoes these sentiments in his call for a "new", value-driven public administration form.

Unfortunately, neither the Government of Yukon nor the Community Services Branch possesses a code of conduct or standard of ethical behaviour for its employees. Upon, being hired and admitted to the public service, Government of Yukon employees swear an oath of public service. However, this oath is very brief and does little more than force an employee to be respectful of Her Majesty the Queen.

Some Community Services Branch Staff may belong to professional industry associations and thus be subject to a code of conduct held by that association. The most likely example of this is membership by Land Use Planning staff in the Planning Institute of British Columbia (PIBC). Membership in that institution includes adherence to an expansive code of conduct formalized by institutional bylaw.

Members have a primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public. This requires the use of theories and techniques of planning that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication, and foster understanding. Accordingly, a Member shall:

14.1.1 practice in a manner that respects the needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters;

14.1.2 provide full, clear and accurate information on public planning matters to decision-makers and the public;

14.1.3 acknowledge the inter-related nature of planning decisions and their consequences for individuals, the natural and built environment, and the broader public interest; and

14.1.4 identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties.

Members owe diligent, creative, independent, and competent performance of work in pursuit of the client's or employer's interest. Accordingly, a Member shall:

14.2.1 provide independent professional opinion to clients, employers, the public, and tribunals;

14.2.2 work with integrity and professionalism;

14.3.3 perform work only within the Member’s professional competence;

14.2.4 not neglect planning services which the Member has agreed to perform, nor render services without research and preparation adequate in the circumstances;

14.2.5 acknowledge the values held by the client or employer in work performed, unless such values conflict with other aspects of this Code;

14.2.6 respect the client's or employer's right to confidentiality of information gathered through a professional relationship, unless this right conflicts with other aspects of this Code;

14.2.7 inform the client or employer in the event of a conflict between the values or actions of the client or employer and the values or actions set in this Code;

14.2.8 ensure full disclosure to a client or employer of a possible conflict of interest arising from the Member’s private or professional activities;

14.2.9 inform all relevant parties and provide the Member’s professional recommendation in circumstances where the public interest may be adversely affected;

14.2.10 reject, and not offer, any financial or other inducements, including prospective employment, that could influence or affect professional opportunities or planning advice;

14.2.11 not, as an employee of a public planning agency, give professional planning advice for compensation to a private client or employer within the jurisdiction of the public agency without written disclosure to the agency; and

14.2.12 not, as a consultant to a public planning agency during the period of contract with the agency, give professional planning advice for compensation to others within the jurisdiction of the agency without written disclosure to the agency in situations where there is the possibility of a conflict of interest arising.

Source: Planning Institute of British Columbia http://www.pibc.bc.ca/code_of_ethics.htm

During interviews with Branch staff further to the preparation of this paper, employees were hard-pressed to cite any ethical dilemmas faced during their tenure with the Branch. When probed on the matter, they frequently responded that existing legislation and regulations provided thorough guidelines and left little potential for moral/value-based decision making. While this may be a testament to the thoroughness of the legislation and regulations that the Branch is responsible for, it is a reflection of the previously mentioned and notably problematic Ethic of Neutrality. Unfortunately, external constraints placed on the preparation of this paper (i.e. time and space) limited the opportunity to delve deeper into this issue during the interviews. Suffice it to say that a number of Branch staff are presented with a great deal of discretion in their daily functioning.

At a minimum, the Community Services Branch would benefit from the creation of a code of conduct outlining value-driven ethical standards for all employees within the Branch. Within the context of the Government of Yukon, this could have broader application than merely the Community Services Branch. Undeniably such a code of conduct would be useful across most divisions and departments in the Government.

Social research is "the systematic observation of social life for the purpose of finding and understanding patterns among what is being observed"(Babbie, 2001, p.2). In essence, social research is a structured inquiry with either exploratory, descriptive or explanatory intents.

The value of social research in public administration lies in an assertion it can provide objective, impartial and unbiased information to decision makers. This "air of neutrality" serves to perpetuate notions that public policy is developed rationally and is based on evidence, facts, understanding and knowledge. Stated more simply, it suggests that policy decisions are made on something other than political considerations.

Despite perspectives brought forth by logical positivists that there is an objective truth which is discoverable if only better research methods are employed, the apparent reality is that all social research is ideological and value driven. Evidence of this can be found in the influence of a particular research methodology or the types of research questions asked and the resulting influence on results. For that matter, a conscious decision not to ask certain research questions represents an ideological intent. Inasmuch as all research is founded on theory, even seemingly neutral research methods are based on a researcher's judgement of what is important to discover and what is not.

Social research in public administration may be better described as an argument. That is, an attempt to prove or disprove the worth of actions or policies for the sake of making one case or another.

Approaches to social research have their source in either inductive or deductive logic. Inductive research involves reasoning wherein specific observations are applied for the sake of discovery a pattern among phenomena. Alternatively, deductive research involves reasoning based on identifying an expected pattern among phenomena and then testing observations for the sake of ascertaining whether or not the pattern is evident.

With this in mind, research can have an exploratory focus in instances where new interests or fields are being examined, a descriptive focus where phenomena is observed and then described, or an explanatory focus within which a researcher attempts to answers questions of "why". Accordingly, research methods vary with the focus. Quantitative methods such as the classical experimental model (where both an experimental and control group are used to test the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable and ascertain the statistical significance of that effect) are used to describe relationships among variables. On the other hand, qualitative field research methods such as case studies, participatory action research, or focus groups are utilized when the researcher has a desire to explain the relationship among variables and can be characterized as guided conversations to an extent. Qualitative methods tend to be more flexible and dynamic than quantitative methods which can be rigid and somewhat dogmatic.

Researchers are commonly interested in notions of reliability along with internal and external validity. A research method that consistently yields similar results is said to have high reliability. Research where the change in the dependant variable can be proclaimed to have been effected by the independent variable is said to have high internal validity whereas the extent to which results can comfortably be inferred across broader populations reflects the external validity (also known as construct validity) of research. When approached diligently with great care placed on sound sampling and pre-testing, experimental social research approaches "are an excellent vehicle for the controlled testing of causal processes"(Babbie, 2001, p.235) and tend to be highly reliable yet possess suspect external validity that the classic experimental model does not guard against. In contrast, qualitative research generally has more external validity yet is less reliable than quantitative research. Despite the acknowledged shortcomings of qualitative research in this regard, authors such as Brower, Abolafia and Carr (2000) suggest that qualitative research approaches can be refined so as to improve the overall soundness of this approach to research.

Internal invalidity can arise from a number of sources, as listed in the following figure.

1. History - did something happen during the experiment to effect the context of the experiment?
2. Maturation - changes in people over the course of an inquiry having an effect on the results.
3. Testing - influences of modes of inquiry on individuals' responses.
4. Instrumentation - Inadequately operationalizing variables.
5. Statistical Regression - the influence of changes occurring relative to the mean when dealing with extreme scores.
6. Selection Bias - unsound means of selecting participants.
7. Experimental Mortality - experimental subjects dropping out of the experiment.
8. Causal Time Order - ambiguity over the timing of an experimental stimulus in relation to the timing of a result.
9. Diffusion or Imitation of Treatments (i.e. experimental stimuli).
10. Compensation.
11. Compensatory Rivalry - subjects working harder to make up for not receiving an experimental stimulus.
12. Demoralization - feelings of deprivation among the sample leading them to give up.

Source: Babbie, 2001.

Concerns over guarding against invalidity are widely shared by social researchers as they attempt to prove or disprove that relationships amongst variables are simply casual. Generally speaking, the soundness of social research and the comfort available in its results can be improved when multiple research methods are employed.

Throughout their work, social researchers are generally concerned that their research methods are ethically sound. In this regard, they tend to espouse the maxims of voluntary participation by subjects, no harm to participants, anonymity of subjects or confidentiality of results, no deception, and honesty and scrutiny in reporting results.

Formal, regimented social research is rare within the Community Services Branch. While the Branch often conducts surveys in the form of mail-out questionnaires to ascertain community members' perspectives on land use issues during community planning initiatives, these questionnaires are meant only to roughly gauge community perspectives. As such, they may be best described as exploratory in nature.

In the drafting of questionnaires, no attempts are made to ensure reliability or internal validity and they are not pre-tested in any formal way. However, great efforts are made to ensure questions are clear and understandable. Sampling is not employed as the surveys are distributed to the entire study population. Return rates vary although often range between 50 and 65%. These questionnaires generally employ a mix of closed and open-ended questions with a view to obtaining both quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative results are tabulated and qualitative information is categorized in a non-scientific manner relative to the content of comments received. Information obtained through questionnaires is then considered in the drafting of land management plans.

The Branch also conducts polls among residents in communities where local governments/representative bodies are being considered. Within these instruments, great care is taken with respect to the confidential distribution and returns of ballots.

Often revered yet only marginally understood in public administration is the concept of evaluation. With the noble purpose of testing the efficacy of programs and policies, evaluation in government is inherently challenging given the competing values and uncertain objectives that define public service. This is not meant to cast program evaluation as a waste of time. On the contrary, program evaluation is essential if governments are to determine the worth or value of policies.

Essentially a form of applied research, program evaluation typically incorporates experimental research principles and/or designs. In this sense, program evaluation is often concerned with describing the impact of an intervention on a population. On occasion, it can also be concerned with explaining the relative success or failure of a program and to this end, appropriate qualitative research tools are required.

Whereas past evaluation paradigms tended towards measurement, description, and judgement, contemporary approaches to public sector program evaluation to involve identifying stakeholders and involving them in defining evaluation criteria, an approach known as Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Presumably this trend is a reflection of post-modern ideals indicative of a societal movement away from assertions of success or failure based on objective truth ascribed by a "professional". However, this is not to argue that contemporary program evaluation is unconcerned with the degree to which a program or policy meets its goals or objectives. Rather modern program evaluation is a consultative approach to defining goals and objectives and generating indicators of success based on a thorough, open dialogue, and ideally a consensus among stakeholders.

In its purest form, program evaluation provides information to policy makers on the relative success of a program so that they can in turn assess whether society's scarce resources should be allocated to the program in light of a host of competing alternatives. This notion is based on the assumption that policy making is approached in a "rational" manner and that allocation decisions are based primarily on economic, rather than political considerations.

Types and styles of evaluations and evaluative approaches vary. Examples include summative evaluations (occurring after a program is complete); formative evaluations (occurring at intervals throughout a program); goal-based evaluation (focussing on whether a program achieves pre-determined objectives); process-based evaluation (designed to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a program and to ascertain how it really works); and, outcome-based evaluation (concentrating on identifying benefits to clients).

Aspects of the evaluation process include planning to evaluate, consulting with stakeholders, selecting evaluation methods, employing those methods, analyzing and interpreting information, and reporting evaluation results. Of course evaluation onto itself presents a cost to an organization and public institutions generally have an aversion to allocating resources for program evaluation in light of other competing budget items. On occasion, public managers may discourage the evaluation of their programs or policies in the event they anticipate the results of an evaluation to be detrimental to appropriating funds for their agency. Thus, the cost of program evaluation, challenges presented in evaluation design, and a reluctance to expose potentially damaging information present the primary reasons why program evaluation is disproportionately absent in public administration.

Even when program evaluation is undertaken, policy makers can be confounded by what to do with the information. For example, if a municipal police force failed to yield a reduction in property crimes, should the program be eliminated, altered, or funded in increasing amounts? Such conundrums are prominent in all facets of public administration and, in reality, tend to require political decisions to arrive at solutions.

As with any form of research, program evaluation manifests an ideological intent given that program evaluation by definition involves the intent to prove or disprove the worth of a program. In its lowest form, program evaluation is an assertion of a program's worth based on the exclusive values on one person (i.e. the policy or program manager). At its best, program evaluation is an assertion of a program's worth based on the values of a wide variety of stakeholders.

Results Orientated Management and Performance Measures

Results orientated management with its foundations in program evaluation has recently become a focal point of the public sector, most notably at provincial/state and municipal levels of government (Poister, 1999). This is likely due to a collective desire to increase accountability to citizens coupled with the challenge "to do more with less" currently being faced by many governments. These are two concepts which have long been part of private sector corporate culture but which have only entered into the lexicon of public sector management in the last ten years - a movement captured in 1992 by Osborne and Gaebler in their management guide Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector.

Only recently has the practical application of results orientated management in the public sector begun to catch up to the rhetoric surrounding the topic (Poister, 1999). Notable public sector innovators in this area include the State of Oregon with its "Oregon Benchmarks" program and the Province of Alberta with its "Measure Up Alberta" program.

A great deal has been written on the topic of creating performance measures in the public sector as a form of program evaluation that treats evaluation and budgeting as inseparable. While various authors espouse differing methods, most describe a system wherein an agency defines its "mission statement", identifies the desired "results" of its work (often in the language of "outcomes" and "outputs"), and establishes "indicators" that can be used to gauge its success in meeting desired results.

Described by the International City/County Management Association as "measuring how much work is done, with how much effort, and with what result" (City of Whitehorse, 1999), performance measures are an extremely useful management tool when used properly. To this end, they provide a mechanism to enable governments to better serve citizens.

Performance measures present the opportunity for a government to evaluate both its level of efficiency (doing things "right") and effectiveness (doing "the right things"). In addition to strengthening accountability of a government, performance measures can also encourage innovation, assist in setting priorities, change the way governments perceive the work they do, and of course improve program performance. Performance measures can also enable a manager to compare his/her agency's processes with those of another agency (an undertaking known as benchmarking).

There are essentially three steps in developing performance measures.

• Step One involves developing a mission statement for each program area (addressing the questions of who?, why?, and what?),
• Step Two involves stating the intended results in terms of "client benefits" (i.e. goods delivered and/or services provided that are viewed by the public as a benefit), "strategic outcomes" (i.e. the broad effects of delivering a program or service rarely attributable to a single program), and "activity outputs" (i.e. the easily measurable and quantifiable work done by governments),
• Step Three is an identification of "indicators" and "targets" for each an every result intended (client benefits, strategic outcomes, and activity outputs). Monitoring the indicators over time will provide information on whether or not intended results are being achieved. Such information is useful in the determination of whether or not the agency has been successful in doing what it set out to do in the first place (thereby addressing both efficiency and effectiveness) and should be generated with a variety of stakeholders.

(source: City of Whitehorse, 1999)

Program evaluation in any form at the Community Services Branch is notable only by its absence. As with most branches in the Government of Yukon, funds are not appropriated on behalf of the Community Services Branch for the sake of evaluating its programs or policies.

Presumably, this is a reflection of competing budget alternatives of a priority higher than that afforded to evaluation by administrators and legislators alike. However, it could also be the product of implicit faith that Branch management knows what, how, and by whom things should be done. Such a belief would be reflective of a classical view of management characterized by evaluation by the manager that is presumably ongoing and informal - reflective of the "judgmental" evaluation paradigm.

The absence of any formal program evaluation in the Community Services Branch may also be a reflection of the difficulty of evaluating Branch programs due to the lack of a defined mission statement, uncertainty of objectives, and the resulting inability to define indicators of success. However, these challenges are not unique to the Community Services Branch and have been faced and overcome by many public sector agencies seeking to evaluate their programs.

Whether through performance measures or some other form of program evaluation, the Community Services Branch is in need of undertaking a thorough and systematic approach to evaluating its programs. This can only be done at such time as a mission is defined for the Branch.

Defining a mission, identifying program goals/objectives, and setting indicators of success (relative to the mission, goals and objectives) within the Branch should be approached in the manner espoused by Guba and Lincoln. Within such an approach, Community Services Branch program stakeholders would be brought together, through a facilitated consultation process with a viewing to arriving at a consensus on these items. The resulting information could nicely serve to generate a range and variety of performance measures for the Community Services Branch with the effect of satisfying the need for some form of program evaluation within the Branch.

However, this is not to suggest that the Community Services Branch should rely exclusively on performance measures. Like all forms of research, program evaluation is most valuable when approached in multiple manners, at varying times, and by different individuals or institutions.

Without the benefit of meaningful program evaluation, the Branch's only assurance that its programs are valuable rests with the perspectives and opinions of Branch and departmental management.

All governments rely on a source of authority to carry out their functions. While sources of authority to govern have varied regionally and historically to include traditional authority (i.e. domination based on inherited position) and charismatic authority (i.e. a projection by a society of extraordinary personal qualities among a leader), most contemporary governments find their authority vested through a legal authority which is binding on all participants (Dickerson and Flanagan, 1994).

Governance is tied to notions of a "state". That is, a body possessing a population, territory, and sovereignty. Thus, a state exists when a "sovereign power [possessing authority] effectively rules over a population residing within the boundaries of a fixed territory"(Dickerson and Flanagan, 1994, p.30). Canada and The United States of America are examples of states in this case as they have a population and territory along with a sovereign authority to govern. Canadian provinces and territories are therefore not nation-states as they do not possess sovereignty within their territories to the extent required to apply this label.

In most developed countries, authority to govern is embodied through a constitution. A constitution is a recorded document that establishes the powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government; allocates these powers at differing levels within the government; lists the rights of citizens; and, identifies a procedure for amending the document. A movement towards constitutionalism in government is a relatively new phenomena in that of all countries possessing a constitution, two-thirds of them have been adopted since 1970.

While the constitution of the United States is contained within a single document, Canada's constitution is something of a hybrid formed by The Constitution Act (1982), The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), and a host Parliamentary statutes. However, unlike the British system, the acts forming the Canadian Constitution cannot be freely amended by Parliament. Rather, changes to the Canadian Constitution can only occur through a complex amending formula requiring support of all ten provinces and the federal government.

What is essential in all of this, is the notion that a country's constitution exists to govern the government and ensure individuals are afforded certain rights and liberties to the degree stipulated within the constitution. Thus a constitution forms something of a social contract wherein individual citizens give up certain rights and freedoms in order to benefit from protections afforded through statehood. Accordingly, constitutions form the basis of democratically governing countries.

Democracy is in itself a simple governance model within which decisions are made relative to the will of the majority. But democracy becomes only a legitimate and moral form of government when its principles are combined with those of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and minority/individual rights. In this respect, while notions of pure democracy have existed for millennia, democracy as a form of governance (directed through a constitution) is only notable in recent centuries and popular in a post World War I context.

Democratic governance incorporating majority rule and respecting individual rights is an inherently complex proposition. John Stuart Mill (de Tocqueville, 1964) refers to this style of governance as "confused democracy". Within the context of democracy as it is known in North America, democratic governance implies freedom, political, economic and social rights along with the rule of many. These rights and freedoms are made possible by the rule of law entrenched in a constitution which serves to impose limits on the extent to which majority will can be imposed on the minority. This style of governance is best described as "constitutional" or "liberal" democracy and involves a balancing act between such considerations.

It is important to note that contemporary democratic governance presents a departure from democratic ideals. In a "direct democracy" all citizens assemble to debate and discuss matters of governance in the spirit of respecting conflict and striving for consensus. However, direct democracy is logistically impossible in states with large populations, vast territories, and extensive issues to address. For this reason, "representative democracy" has evolved as the governance form designed to reflect notions of democracy. In this form of governance, citizens elect representatives on a periodic basis (the terms for which are enshrined in a constitution) to govern on their behalf.

It is through representative democracy that the democratic ideals of mass participation by citizens and accountability are balanced with the administrative bureaucratic ideals of professional expertise, consistency and efficiency. However, this is not to say that such a balance is easily identified or maintained. Rather, over time, societal/situational pressures exert influence on the balance between democratic and bureaucratic ideals resulting in pendulum shifts and systematic fluidity perpetuated by conflicting governance values (for example tendencies away from mass participation in governance during times of war).

With respect to competing values and conflicting approaches, Rosenbloom (1997) describes three approaches to public administration that frame the field but have the effect of being at odds with each other when it comes to governance. The first is the Managerial Approach that promotes effectiveness, efficiency and economy with a view to treating public administration similar to business administration. The second is the Political Approach which espouses political representation and accountability to the electorate. It thus treats individuals as aggregates within a group. The third is the Legal Approach which strives for procedural fairness, equality and individual rights. While Rosenbloom raises these approaches in relation to their influence on the different functions carried out by a government, they illustrate the competing needs found within a democratic state.

When democracy is criticized, it is often for not being democratic enough. In this regard, there has been a great demand by the public for the increased involvement by citizens in governance over recent decades (Nalbandian, 2001). This tendency is likely a product of the desire to reduce cynicism in government and increase faith in public institutions. Numerous public scandals over the past 50 years in combination with public perceptions of general disregard for their input in governance matters being the general causes of this malaise.

Government by citizens via representative democracy requires the faith of citizens in public institutions. In this manner, the greatest threat to democracy is eroding public support for democratic institutions - arguably evident in the low rates of voter turnout that occurs during present day elections.

Presumably, faith in democratic governance and trust between governments and citizens can be maintained and perhaps increased by affording the public with meaningful opportunities for involvement in governance. However, in providing these opportunities, steps must be taken by governments to ensure that public participation is meaningful and not merely token. Otherwise, the effect may be opposite to the intention of restoring faith in democratic governance.

Another concern when it comes to public participation is the disproportionate influence special interest groups can have in governance. By virtue of the ability to organize around a specific interest and their access financial resources, lobbyists can have an affect on public policy development that is far greater than that of the general public.

Notions of liberal or constitutional democracy are apparent in the Yukon. The Territory is governed by Canada's Constitutional documents, a quasi constitution of its own through the federal Yukon Act, and the rule of law enshrined by a judicial court system respecting statutory and common law. Responsible government is somewhat new to the Government of Yukon as the federal government only enabled direct representation in governance for the Yukon in 1978 through the aforementioned Epp Letter.

The Government of Yukon embodies representative democracy. Seventeen elected representatives, known as Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA's), form the territorial legislature. These MLA's are elected by plurality - that is by receiving the greatest number of votes, but not necessarily a majority. MLA's in turn vote in the Yukon Legislature on the passage of budgets and bills. A majority vote by legislators is required for a bill or budget to be passed in this forum.

A constitutionally formalized separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches does not exist in Canada or the Yukon as it does in The United States or Alaska. However, systematic checks and balances are entrenched through a separate, impartial, constitutionally guaranteed judiciary. Additionally, numerous committees, departments, and central agencies exist within the Government of Yukon for the purpose of scrutinizing policy development and policy recommendations prior to being presented to legislators.

Public participation is assured in the Yukon's legislative process through the function of debate by the "Committee of the Whole". This formal process is in essence an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed legislation prior to third and final reading and voting in the legislative assembly. Despite this opportunity, Yukoners are either unaware of or uninterested in participating through this venue. In addition to this limitation, a concern exists that public participation in statutory development must occur well before finalization in order to be meaningful. Fortunately, many Government of Yukon agencies facilitate public involvement through consultation during the development of public policy. Unfortunately, much of this consultation is defined by one-way communication that sees public administrators "informing" the public rather than consulting with them. In these instances, feedback from the public is rarely, if at all, reflected in the policy recommendations presented to decision-makers and thus has the effect of lip service.

An aspect of public participation that is somewhat unique to the Yukon is the influence of an extremely small voter base. With a total population of only 30,000 (and decreasing), only a portion of that eligible to vote (and only a sub-set of that portion actually voting in territorial elections) determinations on which candidate will be elected are often based on a handful of votes. With so few people deciding on the fate of the Territory, the importance of public participation in policy development cannot be emphasized enough.

Recognition by elected officials of the need to build trust between government and citizens in the Yukon was recently acknowledged through the Premier's "Speech from the Throne". In this regard, the final of the following seven priorities (cited as the focus of the Government of Yukon), is significant.

1. Settling outstanding land claims.
2. Rebuilding the Yukon economy.
3. Achieving devolution.
4. Developing infrastructure.
5. Maintaining quality health care
6. Addressing alcohol and drug addictions.
7. Restoring confidence in government.

Source: http://www.gov.yk.ca/pubs/thspeech.html

In contrast to other agencies within the Government of Yukon, the Community Services Branch places great emphasis on public participation in policy development through meaningful two-way communication to the point that public consultation presents the bulk of work undertaken by the Branch. In this regard, the topic of participation was addressed in great detail during the writing of this paper through an interview with the Branch Director.

Unlike other agencies who may view consultation as a barrier to policy development and thus be somewhat dismissive of it due to the potential for confrontational situations arising between public agencies and the public, the Community Services Branch brings a different perspective to consultation. Within the Branch, staff are encouraged and required to guide the Branch's policy development initiatives in such a way that meaningful public participation occurs via open communication between the public (i.e. community members) and the Branch as well as among the public. In this manner, resident-led steering committees, surveys, questionnaires, town hall meetings, open houses, polls, and to a degree votes, are present in the development of

community plans, zoning regulations, legislative recommendations, and governmental policies undertaken by the Branch.

Within these initiatives, the primary function of Branch staff is to facilitate the public process while their secondary function is to provide technical expertise. In this manner, Branch staff work closely with individuals in communities by asserting that policy development should be based on public participation. While Branch staff may offer "expert advice" to communities in some instances, they attempt to remain neutral on the outcome of policy. Thus, to a large degree, the product of the Community Services Branch is process.

The Branch strives to accommodate a balance of interests and ensure that all voices are heard. In the event that an interested party claims to have been alienated by a Branch-led public process, that claim is respected and the Branch "backtracks" for the sake of honouring the claim and attempting to address the concern. Whereas in other agencies, the reaction can at times be "sorry, you missed the boat", therefore serving to create enemies of the agency and opponents to the policy.

Special interest groups in the form of either individual or collections of community members making delegations to their elected member of the legislature over initiatives being undertaken by the Community Services Branch occur with some frequency given a constituents ease in accessing their representatives. However, the structure of government is such that a department's Minister or the Premier are the only elected officials who can direct Branch operations. Often, after hearing the concerns raised by constituents over Community Services Branch policy development initiatives, concerned parties are encouraged by elected officials to participate in the public process of policy development presumably on the assumption that the process undertaken by the Branch is a reasonable one.

The net effect of policy development through public participation as facilitated by the Community Services Branch may not always be reflective of community consensus, but it is often "enemy-less". Where possible, forums for public participation tending towards consensus building (i.e. public workshops) are opted for over forums for public participation which may have the effect of polarizing communities (i.e. votes or polls based on yes or no responses leading to the creation of winners and losers within a community). However, on occasion, Branch staff can become disillusioned by the goal of consensus building given the time and effort it requires.

The Community Services Branch's emphasis on accommodating all interests within policy development has the effect of engaging a significant number of community members over the span of a Branch initiative. As such, fringe or extreme interests can be marginalized when the bulk of community members call for moderation and insist on their assertion of what is reasonable. At no time, however, are the legally afforded rights of any individual comprised.

In closing, it is clear that the Community Services Branch tends towards the democratic, rather than bureaucratic form. When the Branch is criticized, it is for being slow in policy development rather than non-participatory. Of course, public participation to the degree and quality it occurs within the Branch is made practicable by the relatively small numbers of residents in the unincorporated communities where Branch initiatives are occurring and the non-urgent nature of community development policy initiatives.

To the extent that "typical" agencies do in fact exist in the public sector, the Community Services Branch is definitely atypical. The Branch exists within a highly structured environment but is in itself highly unstructured in terms of how operations are undertaken. While some staff become frustrated at times by this lack of structure, others view it and the associated autonomy as enabling and empowering. Such dissonant perspectives are characteristic of postmodern epistemology and metaphysical views.

Leadership within the Community Services Branch presents a defining characteristic of the Branch. The Director possesses a democratic style with tendencies towards affiliative and coaching styles. The result of this style is a collegial, team-based approach to policy development wherein the various individual's strengths are capitalized upon. In this sense, the Director can be best described as a problem solving, resource person.

Public participation in policy development is highly valued within the Community Services Branch. The Branch tends toward the democratic rather than bureaucratic form in this regard. Because of the emphasis on meaningful public consultation and consensus building among citizens in Branch initiatives, policy development is slow and inefficient. That being said, policies developed by the Branch, often in partnership with a variety of stakeholders throughout communities, tend to be widely supported and agreed upon by many.

The Community Services Branch appears to suffer from the lack of a clearly defined mission statement. While the Director explains that his hesitancy in facilitating the development of one for the Branch stems from a fear for the loss of spontaneity in problem solving or organic approaches to policy development potentially arising from defining and adhering to a mission, he also acknowledges that one would be beneficial to the Branch in other regards. Most notably, the lack of a defined mission statement for the Community Services Branch eliminates any opportunity to effectively coordinate or reasonably assess the success of Branch initiatives.

This paper was not meant to be an empirical evaluation of the Community Services Branch or the efficacy of its policy development initiatives as determined through empirical social research practices. Of course the reliability and degree to which the results of this paper could be inferred to other agencies is limited given the nature of study and the resulting decision not to use empirical research methods. That being said, drawing inferences to larger populations was not the intention of this exercise.

Rather, qualitative field research combined with an extensive literature review enabled an assessment of the Community Services Branch and an explanation of how the central issues and concepts in public administration are evident within the agency. This exercise also enabled the identification of how Branch functions and operations could be improved by better or more thoroughly applying theory to practice.

Given the qualitative methods used and the researcher's attention to form in the use of these methods, a fair degree of comfort can be taken that findings possess considerable internal validity.

Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research (9^th Ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.

Behn, R.D. (2001). The Big Questions of Public Management. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.13-25).

Brower, R.S., Abolafia, M.Y. and Carr, J.B. (2000). Improving Qualitative Methods in Public Administration Research. Administration and Society, 32(4), pp. 363-398.

Buck, S.J. (1996). Understanding Environmental Administration and Law (2^nd Ed.). Island Press: Connecticut.

Caiden, G.E. (2001). Public Service Ethics Reform. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.63-65).

Dickerson, M.O. and Flanagan, T. (1994). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach (4th Ed.). University of Calgary: Nelson.

Dror, Y. (1997). Policy Analysts: A New Professional Role for Government Service. In J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.) Classics of Public Administration (4^th Ed.). (pp.254-261).

Farynowski, L. (2000). Issues in Public Administration & Their Application to the Yukon Government's Trade & Investment Branch and its Export Initiatives. Unpublished MPA Capstone Paper.

Frederickson, H.G. (1997). Towards a New Public Administration. In J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.) Classics of Public Administration (4^th Ed.). (pp.329-341).

Fister-Gale, S. (2001). Formalized Flextime: The Perk that Brings Productivity. Workforce, www.workfocre.com

Franklin, A. and Raadschellers, J. (2001). Translating 'High Codes" into Daily Action. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.61-62).

Gall, G.L. (1995). The Canadian Legal System (4^th Ed.). Carswell: Toronto.

Goleman, D. (2001). Leadership That Gets Results. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.30-39).

Gordon, J.R. (1999). Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach. 6^th Ed. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage: Newbury Park.

Hogg, P.W. (1997). Constitutional Law of Canada. Carswell: Toronto.

Holland, D.C. and McGowan, J.P. (1989). Delegated Legislation in Canada. Carswell: Toronto.

Jones, D.P. and de Villars, A.S. (1999). Principles of Administrative Law (3^rd Ed.). Carswell: Toronto.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

Menzel, D. (2001). Moral Mutes with Ethical Voices: Can Public Managers Have it Both Ways? In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.66-67).

Mikesell, J.L. (1999). Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector (5^th Ed.). Harcourt: Fort Worth.

Nalbandian, J. (2001). Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.45-54).

Noble, B. (2001). The Art and Practice of Policy. Government of Yukon Training Manual. Unpublished manuscript.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Penguin: New York.

Paradis, J.A. (2000). Performance Management & Performance Indicators. Unpublished Manuscript.

Poister, T.H. (July/Aug. 1999). Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, Issue 4, pp.325-336.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. Warner: New York.

Rosenblum, D.H. (1997). Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers. In J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.) Classics of Public Administration (4^th Ed.). (pp.432-443).

Royse, D. and Thyer, B.A. (1996). Program Evaluation: An Introduction (2^nd Ed.). Nelson Hall: Chicago.

Sharkansky, I. (1997). What a Political Scientist Can Tell a Policy Maker About the Likelihood of Success or Failure. In J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.) Classics of Public Administration (4^th Ed.). (pp.514-522).

Stillman, R.J. (1996). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases (6^th Ed.). Houghton Mifflin: Boston.

Stiglitz, J.E. and Boadway, R.W. (1997). Principles of Macro-Economics and the Canadian Economy 2^nd Ed. Norton: New York.

Stiglitz, J.E. and Boadway, R.W. (1997). Principles of Micro-Economics and the Canadian Economy 2^nd Ed. Norton: New York.

Taylor, E. (2000). A Case Study in Public Administration. Unpublished MPA Capstone Paper.

Teasley, C.E. III (2001). The Perpetual Pursuit of Purpose: PA-Sate of the Discipline II. In H.R. Balanoff (Ed.) Public Administration: Annual Editions 01/02. (pp.9-12).

Thompson, D.F. (1997). The Possibility of Administrative Ethics. In J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.) Classics of Public Administration (4^th Ed.). (pp.444-452).

Trochim, W.K. (1999). Introduction to Validity. Research Methods Knowledge Base (2^nd Ed.). http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/introval.htm

Trochim, W.K. (1999). Positivism and Post-Positivism. Research Methods Knowledge Base (2^nd Ed.). http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/positivism.htm

Weimer, D.L. and Vining, A.R. (1999). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (3^rd Ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Willis, B.L. (2001). Administrative Law for Managers: Casebook for the Masters in Public Administration Degree, University of Alaska Souteast. Unpublished Manuscript.

Willis, B.L. (no date). "Bradasch v. Warren: Further Judicial Observations on the Constitutional Status of the Northern Territories", Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice. [4 C.J.A.L.P.].

Young, D.W. (2000). The Six Levers for Managing Organizational Culture. Business Horizons, 43(5)19-29.

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Statutes of the

Area Development Act, Revised Statutes of the Yukon 1986 - Chapter 9.

Appropriations Acts (various by year).

Dog Act, Revised Statutes of the Yukon 1986 – Chapter 47.

Financial Administration Act, Revised Statutes of the Yukon 1986 – Chapter 65.

Municipal Act, Statutes of the Yukon 1998 – Chapter 19.

Subdivision Act, Statutes of the Yukon 1996 – Chapter 13.

Constitution Act, 1982

Yukon Act, Revised Statutes 1985 – Chapter Y-2.

Mr. Laurie Butterworth - Cartographer, Community Services Branch - April 5, 2001.

Ms Shirley Clark - Community Advisor, Community Services Branch - April 6, 2001.

Ms Sheila O'Hanlon - Community Advisor, Community Services Branch - April 4, 2001.

Ms Judy Linton - Subdivision/Land Use Planner, Community Services Branch - April 6, 2001.

Mr. George Stetkiewicz - Manager Land Planning, Community Services Branch - ongoing discussions.

Mr. Ross Knox - past Community Advisor, Community Services Branch - March 15, 2000.

Ms Brenda Hansen - Administrative Assistant, Community Services Branch - ongoing discussions.

Mr. Ken Hodgins - Director, Community Services Branch - April 12, 2001.

Mr. Marc Tremblay - Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal and Community Affairs Division - informal discussion April 6, 2001.