Thank you for the question.
I think there are concerns about the situation you raise, not particularly as a result of the acting appointment, but because of the fact that in some professions and in some departments there is an extraordinary amount of churn.
I think the president of the Public Service Commission was here recently. Some of the statistics that came from her study on mobility are quite startling. The personnel administration category had 74% movement in one year. The economist/sociologist category had 71% movement. The executive category had 55% movement.
This is a complex issue. It's not due to just one cause. I think in large measure it's due to the retirements and the domino effect that leaves positions vacant. There are a lot of lateral moves and a lot of promotions. I think it also could be a sign of an organization that's in transition. It's hard to put your finger on exactly why this does happen, but I think the impact on the quality of the work and the attractiveness of that workplace as a place where people would want to work becomes a little bit questionable. There is a serious impact about knowledge transfer and a lack of continuity.
On the other hand, there is actually a positive side to this, in that those vacancies, those positions that are open, do give the government and the managers an opportunity to hire people with a different skill set. It does give them an opportunity to maybe change the way the nature of the work is done or improve the processes.
I think you have to look at both sides of it, but it is a serious issue. I think we would like the norm for tenure to be at least three years, but it's not something we have been able to edict, let's put it that way. We do attempt to do that with our senior cadre, the deputies, but given the demographics and the operational needs, we find ourselves in a position where we have to move some of the people around to get them the breadth so that they can eventually move up. I think it will be a challenge until probably after 2012-13.