Security of classified information: one standard or many?

Purpose There should be one standard for those with access to classified data. Leadership by example should be required by all managers, supervisors and department heads. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a viewpoint and does not have a methodology. Findings Leaders who work in the public sector have an inherent responsibility to earn and maintain the trust of the public for whom they serve. Regardless of whether one is a career government employee, a politician or a political appointee, all who have access to classified material should respect the necessity of safeguards to keep one’s nation’s secrets – secret. Research limitations/implications If leaders fail to set the example, then nations risk further breaches of their classified information. Practical implications This viewpoint applies to anyone who works in an environment dealing with classified material. Social implications This viewpoint serves to educate the public on maintaining a single standard for those who handle classified material. Originality/value The author has yet to see much covered in peer-reviewed publications on this topic and believe that the subject is particularly relevant at this time.

Politics and Merit: Can They Meet in a Public Service Model?

This analysis examines existing models of career bureaucrat and political appointee relationships and asks: to what extent is the broader purpose of public service for both politicals and careerists considered? Because most current models focus on career responsibilities, but exclude the special public responsibilities of political managers, a new “Public Service Model” is proposed. The new-model proposes a joint political-career commitment to serving the public interest and a heightened recognition of the value of both sets of public executives. Both have a critical role to play in democratic policy processes; joint action and cooperation are essential to effective governance.

John Backhouse and the Origins of the Permanent Undersecretaryship for Foreign Affairs: 1828-1842

One of the more important features of the transformation of the departmental service of the eighteenth century into the civil service of the nineteenth century was the emergence of the permanent official. There had always been a degree of permanence in the bureaucracy, particularly in the clerical positions, but in the higher ranks and especially among the undersecretaries the distinction between political and clerical officers tended to be blurred and each man had responsibilities in both spheres. By 1830 these officials no longer occupied ambivalent situations. In most departments one was a political appointee whose position was dependent on the political fortunes of the minister. The other undersecretary, however, had shed his political responsibilities and as a consequence was more or less immune to the political forces of parliamentary politics.Yet the process whereby these events took place was to a certain extent individualized in different departments. In the case of the Foreign Office the impact of financial and political changes in the state was considerably less important than in departments such as the Treasury. Neither of the foreign undersecretaries had ever had much influence over the formation of policy, nor were they to gain responsibility in this area during the 1830s. Yet clearly by the time Lord Palmerston became foreign secretary one of these men, John Backhouse, occupied a permanent position while his colleague, Sir George Shee, held a more temporary status. The distinction between the two positions became more rigid during the period Backhouse remained in office not so much as a result of political forces in the state, though these forces contributed somewhat to the changes that occurred, but as a consequence of Backhouse's growing responsibility for supervising the establishment.