IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

No one has ever got to the bottom of how Magson was employed by the DHSC is possibly because she never was employed. We are told she was seconded, which means, I think, DHSC has a contract with her employer to provide her services and the employer is reimbursed with the costs.

So the secondment contract is highly relevant and payments would not be going through the payroll.  Didn't someone ask if she would be paying IOM income tax?

The secondment thing was how it was described at the time, but I wonder if she was actually being paid through a personal company Kathryn E Magson Ltd and that might have been the case with previous employment as well. 

[Moddey Dhoo]

48 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It was discussed at some length in the Liability Decision starting here:

104. After seeing the Respondent’s advertisement in 2019 to appoint a Medical Director, Dr Ranson was the successful candidate. As advertised, the role was open-ended and not limited to a two-year term. The job was described as being Permanent Full Time with an operational MD role. The appointment was described as “Interim.” She opted for the Limited Term Agreement (LTA) of two years to receive the increased remuneration. The appointment was set against the background that Dr Ranson knew from the outset that following Sir Jonathan Michael’s report, the Respondent would be going through a transition process. She expected a trouble-free transition for her to continue with Manx Care.

I couldn't see anything about a valid LTA not being found (though it wouldn't surprise me) but it's clear from the subsequent pages of the Decision that the fact was that it clearly wasn't expected to be an interim appointment was the deciding factor.

As for the allegations of incompetence, they didn't even try to make them to the Tribunal:

117 [...]  The Respondent’s un-pleaded case was that the reason for Dr Ranson’s dismissal was based on allegations of capability. This was never the reason given to Dr Ranson at the time (December 2020) and no due process had been followed procedurally to ensure a fair dismissal anyway.

Which didn't stop them trying to make out it was the 'real' reason in the usual whispering campaign, though only a few politicians seem to have been gullible enough to believe them

I think that reflects DHSS (esp Conie's) competence. Concerns were raised at a very early stage re Ranson's suitability / capability for the role . Her legal team played a complete blinder in portraying her as some sort of  whistle blowing super doc-many of those who had to work with (read, 'for' her) would likely disgaree. Her previous employment 'troubles' as a GP were seemingly very skilfully skipped around  (with the assistance of NDAs I suspect) but would likely have provided important context if admissable.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

The secondment thing was how it was described at the time, but I wonder if she was actually being paid through a personal company Kathryn E Magson Ltd and that might have been the case with previous employment as well. 

The accounts filed show 0 employees. 

[Steve_Christian]

Interesting comments from Rob C on twitter, stating what was said about ministerial powers during the last sitting was incorrect on the back of a question from Tim Glover. Perhaps Rob never signed ministerial delegation and it still sat with Hooper? 

[Two-lane]

I think this is the question mentioned above:

"Further to his reference in Tynwald on 16th May 2023 to a delegation,

when the delegation was signed and when it was relied on;

if it was relied on before it was signed, whether it was made clear to the then Minister that his signature was required retrospectively;

on the basis of what evidence it was deemed that the then Minister was unavailable when the delegation was relied on;

and whether, and if so when and how, the then Minister was advised that a delegated function had been carried out in his absence."

It was due to be answered 09/06/2023.

[I put a few newlines in there to help me understand the text. Apart from that the text is as published]

[2112]

On 6/11/2023 at 8:19 PM, Two-lane said:

@1:30 ... timid MHKs

I watched these 2 programs. Bit confusing, is there another Ranson hearing, has she brought another case? 

[Boo Gay'n]

18 hours ago, Steve_Christian said:

Interesting comments from Rob C on twitter, stating what was said about ministerial powers during the last sitting was incorrect on the back of a question from Tim Glover. Perhaps Rob never signed ministerial delegation and it still sat with Hooper? 

In essence, Hooper and Rob the Gob are accusing each other of lying.

[Jarndyce]

9 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

In essence, Hooper and Rob the Gob are accusing each other of lying.

Yikes!   Fetch the popcorn, Ginger!

[WTF]

44 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

In essence, Hooper and Rob the Gob are accusing each other of lying.

maybe they are both correct ???

[Roxanne]

70k a year to have a bun fight on social media. 

Bloody Nora.

[Roger Mexico]

38 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

In essence, Hooper and Rob the Gob are accusing each other of lying.

It's worth clicking on the Twitter link to get full effect of the sheer childishness of Hooper's response.  And of course he didn't need to say anything at all.

Glover's question (ref W-202301-0689) was due to be answered on the 9th.  To be fair there were two Bank Holidays in the fortnight possible, but it's still late.  And it was the sort of thing that should have been fairly straightforward to answer:

Further to his reference in Tynwald on 16th May 2023 to a delegation, when the delegation was signed and when it was relied on; if it was relied on before it was signed, whether it was made clear to the then Minister that his signature was required retrospectively; on the basis of what evidence it was deemed that the then Minister was unavailable when the delegation was relied on; and whether, and if so when and how, the then Minister was advised that a delegated function had been carried out in his absence.

Delegations are important legal documents and you would expect highly-paid civil servants to have this sort of information easily to hand because they would be breaking the law if they got it wrong.  Yet there's a delay.

[doc.fixit]

2 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

In essence, Hooper and Rob the Gob are accusing each other of lying.

Are these schoolboys really representing us?

[forestboy]

3 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

Are these schoolboys really representing us?

No.  Kinder garden kids 

[Roxanne]

10 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

Are these schoolboys really representing us?

Not only representing us. Also, costing us money in enquiries, tribunals, payouts and using their electorate to pay off their financial blunders. So we pay them and then we pay for their mistakes. None of it is cost effective. It's a bloody shambles, that's what it is.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Roxanne
change word

[Two-lane]

How much of their time do they spend monitoring each other's Twitter accounts? Is there an MHK mandatory response time for insults issued on Twitter?

Total annual salary for these two, as far as I can make out, assuming one is a minister and one is not, is £153,961.50. Plus pension contrubutions.