DoI not fit for purpose

[Numbnuts]

23 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Retired apparently.  Which seems plausible as no one ever left the DoI on the grounds of incompetence.  It would have been nice if he had given any examples of where the DoI had been held back by the lack of money, wouldn't it?

Brown is actually right about one thing - reorganisation won't solve the DoI's problems, though it's usually the way that the Manx government has tried to deal with its problems in recent times.  The only thing that will solve it is a clear out.

To be fair their projects prepared for budget had lots of items nocked back . Rightly so if only for the reason they are not fit to carry out major schemes .

Edited January 27, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Numbnuts said:

To be fair there projects prepared for budget had lots of items nocked back . Rightly so if only for the reason they are not fit to carry out major schemes .

Quite.  But I reckon a list of the things they wanted to do and were stopped would have undermined his argument even more.

[Stu Peters]

37 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Retired apparently.  Which seems plausible as no one ever left the DoI on the grounds of incompetence.  It would have been nice if he had given any examples of where the DoI had been held back by the lack of money, wouldn't it?

Brown is actually right about one thing - reorganisation won't solve the DoI's problems, though it's usually the way that the Manx government has tried to deal with its problems in recent times.  The only thing that will solve it is a clear out.

OK, let's consider that. How could that happen? Who would decide which officers were 'lacking', how would they prove it, and how would you fire the guilty without ending up with numerous wrongful dismissal and tribunal claims, union problems or alienating the remaining 'good' managers? You have to make a cast-iron case to sack someone - isn't it more likely that there'd be huge pushback and a closing of the ranks and shuffling of paper to prove a Nuremberg defence (I was just following order)? Genuine question - it sounds such an easy solution but I suspect it's anything but.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Stu Peters
Typo

[fireblade paul]

Thompson was in charge of iris cockup at kewaigue pumping station .which cost me and family our house ,plus 6 other householders .would not be told by more professional people what the problem was ,and proceeded with wasting millions trying to sort it out .

[Boo Gay'n]

46 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The only reference you can find to this extremely high profile person online says he retired in 2013. Handing the poisoned baton over to Nick Black. Who retired in 2021. You do get the impression that the only reason the role exists is to bump up your pension for 5 years or so until you retire. 

Oh, lovely dates.  Who hired Mr Longworth?

[Non-Believer]

9 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

OK, let's consider that. How could that happen? Who would decide which officers were 'lacking', how would they prove it, and how would you fire the guilty without ending up with numerous wrongful dismissal and tribunal claims, union problems or alienating the remaining 'good' managers? You have to make a cast-iron case to sack someone - isn't it more likely that there'd be huge pushback and a closing of the ranks and shuffling of paper to prove a Nuremberg defence (I was just following order)? Genuine question - it sounds such an easy solution but I suspect it's anything but.

Given that CM Cannan, in the subject of this thread itself, publicly declared that the DOI was unfit for purpose is surely reason enough to warrant reform? They've been already found lacking.

[Numbnuts]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

OK, let's consider that. How could that happen? Who would decide which officers were 'lacking', how would they prove it, and how would you fire the guilty without ending up with numerous wrongful dismissal and tribunal claims, union problems or alienating the remaining 'good' managers? You have to make a cast-iron case to sack someone - isn't it more likely that there'd be huge pushback and a closing of the ranks and shuffling of paper to prove a Nuremberg defence (I was just following order)? Genuine question - it sounds such an easy solution but I suspect it's anything but.

I get totally what your saying and suggesting. However that doesnt mean you dont try and address it. Clearly recruitment has been sadly lacking so theres a good place to start. Its obvious that personal in leading positions in DOI are not up to the job or their job descriptions are that flawed they cant be pulled up. Whatever though , the Manx tax payer deserves much better . If the DOI in effect were a private company what would happen !?? Yes its hard due to the bullet proof enviroment they work and live in but thats no excuse for doing nothing. Reading between the lines with your comment , and maybe thats unfair , but as a MHK it would seem you havent a clue either how to broach the issues. Needs a on the ball CE in there , with total backup from CM and Treasury minister and he needs to go through contracts with a fine tooth comb and if necessary show a few the door. Cant cost more than it already is doing. But the guy has to be ruthless and very single minded. TBH I half wished Cowin would have got in in Peel as that would have been something to see . He doesn't care who he upsets. But he for sure would have addressed the shortfalls .

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Stu Peters]

Numbnuts - I don't disagree. But neither the CM nor the DoI Minister or the interim CEO can go in and fire a lot of expensive staff without a MAJOR (read expensive) investigation finding that they should be held personally responsible for (assumedly) corporate mistakes that involved a whole chain of command. The Beaman's report was pretty damning, but it didn't target any individuals. I also expect that the employment criteria were met in each case at interview. It's not a case of having anecdotal evidence that someone is useless - you would have to examine what their brief was, who they reported to, whether they had achieved the targets set for them, and why projects went wrong. Experienced hands will know how to cover themselves against any such criticism.

I'm an old-fashioned 'heads on spikes' bloke, and am 100% into holding people accountable, but nobody in the real world can do an Alan Sugar with people's careers without VERY good reason. The Prom, Liverpool landing stage, Richmond Hill, the NSC flumes have all been expensive disasters. But you're quite right, I wouldn't have a clue how to go about sorting this mess out without making a bad situation worse, which is why I asked the question in case someone here has relevant personal experience to inform us.

[Numbnuts]

Stu Peters , nobody in the private sector , us ! , will have a clue as it just wouldnt happen in any shape of form in that enviroment. I suspect your right when you mention terms and contracts but its just been left to fester. Writing was firmly on the wall in the Iris scheme and recruitment since has clearly been flawed . I would start with HR and recruitment and contracts/conditions so nobody is employed in the future without being able to pull them for inefficiency and incompetance. Beaman report is into the long grass it looks like . Was his brief to identify individuals  , I dont think so. Yes it might be expensive but its already expensive weekly with the current setup.      

Edited January 27, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Ghost Ship]

Any organisation - be it private sector or public sector - needs robust and defendable HR practices and processes in place so that, if necessary, underperforming staff can be managed out of the organisation.  Or just sacked.  And that applies just as much to the most senior employees and heads of department as it does to the most humble admin and clerical staff.

Indeed it's arguable that this is an even greater necessity in the public sector because it involves public money (often large amounts in the case of very senior staff), and the extent of the liability (eg pension rights) can be excessively costly if the employer gets it wrong.

To say, in effect, that it's too difficult to manage because you'd have to set performance targets for them, that you'd have to monitor their performance against those targets, that you'd have to gather evidence of their failure to meet those targets, and that you might get sued in an employment tribunal if you got it wrong(!) is plain crazy.  Any half competent HR department should be able to deal with that no sweat.  Get the right HR processes in place and set performance targets that can be properly measured and which require competence to achieve, and you should never go wrong.

And saying that experienced hands will will know how to cover themselves from any criticism and therefore it's not worth even trying displays what I can only call defeatism of the worst type.

The first step to achieving this is getting a strong HR department in place and giving them the political support to do the job.  It seems to me that the IoM overpays its civil servants in terms of their responsibilities so it needs to make clear to its senior CS when appointing them that that premium comes at a cost - if they don't perform they will get kicked out.

I worked in the NHS in the UK for 25 years and ended up as a reasonably senior manager.  When I joined it was quite unusual for senior staff who underperformed to be sacked.  The prevailing NHS culture was against that and Personnel (as they then were) departments were terrified of getting rid of somebody wrongly and getting hauled off to a tribunal. It wasn't how the NHS treated staff.

By the time I left the NHS things were completely different and there were robust performance management processes in place for all staff such that if necessary, anybody could be got rid off.  I've seen more than one Chief Executive of a NHS trust binned, and board level directors too.

And sometimes - even if you do get taken to a tribunal - it's cheaper to sack somebody even if you lose the case than it is to keep employing them.  But if you manage their disposal correctly, you should never lose...

[Non-Believer]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Numbnuts - I don't disagree. But neither the CM nor the DoI Minister or the interim CEO can go in and fire a lot of expensive staff without a MAJOR (read expensive) investigation finding that they should be held personally responsible for (assumedly) corporate mistakes that involved a whole chain of command. The Beaman's report was pretty damning, but it didn't target any individuals. I also expect that the employment criteria were met in each case at interview. It's not a case of having anecdotal evidence that someone is useless - you would have to examine what their brief was, who they reported to, whether they had achieved the targets set for them, and why projects went wrong. Experienced hands will know how to cover themselves against any such criticism.

I'm an old-fashioned 'heads on spikes' bloke, and am 100% into holding people accountable, but nobody in the real world can do an Alan Sugar with people's careers without VERY good reason. The Prom, Liverpool landing stage, Richmond Hill, the NSC flumes have all been expensive disasters. But you're quite right, I wouldn't have a clue how to go about sorting this mess out without making a bad situation worse, which is why I asked the question in case someone here has relevant personal experience to inform us.

Employment criteria..?

Beaman's will end up being a Lisvane by having the palatable, beneficial-for-some bits cherry-picked out and difficult, nasty stuff carefully binned.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[asitis]

How does an arm of Government not know how many Civil engineers it has and whether or not they are qualified to be so ?

I assume the post of Civil Engineer attracts a salary commensurate with the role and if the post in the paper is true then are people being paid a salary uplift which they are not entitled to !

If this is true it could, and perhaps should, be a matter for the Police.

[Andy Onchan]

3 hours ago, asitis said:

How does an arm of Government not know how many Civil engineers it has and whether or not they are qualified to be so ?

I assume the post of Civil Engineer attracts a salary commensurate with the role and if the post in the paper is true then are people being paid a salary uplift which they are not entitled to !

If this is true it could, and perhaps should, be a matter for the Police.

Corruption, which an MHK who frequents this forum says is difficult to prove. The above is probably the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps not criminal but most certainly institutional. A root and branch audit on HR records and due diligence wouldn't go amiss.

[Max Power]

10 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Any organisation - be it private sector or public sector - needs robust and defendable HR practices and processes in place so that, if necessary, underperforming staff can be managed out of the organisation.  Or just sacked.  And that applies just as much to the most senior employees and heads of department as it does to the most humble admin and clerical staff.

Indeed it's arguable that this is an even greater necessity in the public sector because it involves public money (often large amounts in the case of very senior staff), and the extent of the liability (eg pension rights) can be excessively costly if the employer gets it wrong.

To say, in effect, that it's too difficult to manage because you'd have to set performance targets for them, that you'd have to monitor their performance against those targets, that you'd have to gather evidence of their failure to meet those targets, and that you might get sued in an employment tribunal if you got it wrong(!) is plain crazy.  Any half competent HR department should be able to deal with that no sweat.  Get the right HR processes in place and set performance targets that can be properly measured and which require competence to achieve, and you should never go wrong.

And saying that experienced hands will will know how to cover themselves from any criticism and therefore it's not worth even trying displays what I can only call defeatism of the worst type.

The first step to achieving this is getting a strong HR department in place and giving them the political support to do the job.  It seems to me that the IoM overpays its civil servants in terms of their responsibilities so it needs to make clear to its senior CS when appointing them that that premium comes at a cost - if they don't perform they will get kicked out.

I worked in the NHS in the UK for 25 years and ended up as a reasonably senior manager.  When I joined it was quite unusual for senior staff who underperformed to be sacked.  The prevailing NHS culture was against that and Personnel (as they then were) departments were terrified of getting rid of somebody wrongly and getting hauled off to a tribunal. It wasn't how the NHS treated staff.

By the time I left the NHS things were completely different and there were robust performance management processes in place for all staff such that if necessary, anybody could be got rid off.  I've seen more than one Chief Executive of a NHS trust binned, and board level directors too.

And sometimes - even if you do get taken to a tribunal - it's cheaper to sack somebody even if you lose the case than it is to keep employing them.  But if you manage their disposal correctly, you should never lose...

I'm sure that you will have experienced government HR staff during your tenure? I don't think I need say more, other than that I am sure they don't pick them for any HR skills that they may have! 

[asitis]

33 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Corruption, which an MHK who frequents this forum says is difficult to prove. The above is probably the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps not criminal but most certainly institutional. A root and branch audit on HR records and due diligence wouldn't go amiss.

It's potentially criminal Andy if someone has misrepresented their qualifications, and thus obtained a salary at a higher point than unqualified. Theft Act .... obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.