Wavey Davey Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 16 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: But you only have to look at Stu's comment: " Imagine you were CEO and your minister was checking up on you with other more junior staff? It would be untenable, and surely there must be a chain of command", to see that is exactly how things are expected to operate. Even when Ministers are discussing things with those further down the line, it is likely to be in meetings where the CEO is also present. It’s only the same as being a CEO and having your shareholders and directors checking up on what you’re doing via a board meeting every quarter where strategy and finances and other areas of interest to ensure the company is being run effectively are discussed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: Perhaps Crookall resigned because he wanted to change things at the Department for Giving Money to Your Mates and was told the civil service didn't want it. Because if that changed, what else would they have left to do...? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOR Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 18 minutes ago, Wavey Davey said: It’s only the same as being a CEO and having your shareholders and directors checking up on what you’re doing via a board meeting every quarter where strategy and finances and other areas of interest to ensure the company is being run effectively are discussed. There are meetings upon meetings of course, but maybe there should be a quarterly meeting for each department that is accessible to the public where an update is provided on how, what, why, when etc. the department is doing, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 But the public have no power. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 Neither do the MHKs or Comin(or the knob head clowns as I prefer to call them) Sorry can't help myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whimsy Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 So, apart from all that, what's the skeet as to why Tim resigned from CoMIN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 Allusions to friction with other CoMin members on MR Perspective today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 9 hours ago, Hoops said: And what is a minister for? They won't have expertise in the field they oversee. Maybe we should actually be voting for the CEO of the department, rather then their spokesperson? Doesn't say a lot for our democracy really, does it? Ministers are not there to have operational involvement, but to provide policy direction. This is why having a CEO who is not operationally experienced is foolish. Too much at the top without the technical or operational experience to provide meaningful guidance or oversight. Too many bullshitters, pole climbers and accountants to effectively lead their functions. Chief Officers Group is not a club for chief administrators but a group of functional heads and leaders who can provide advice to CoMIN and take political decisions and transfer these to a strategic plan for implementation. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 10 hours ago, Hoops said: And what is a minister for? They won't have expertise in the field they oversee. Maybe we should actually be voting for the CEO of the department, rather then their spokesperson? Doesn't say a lot for our democracy really, does it? A minister is there to take the lead on policy implementation, which originates from government & indeed Tynwald too The minister being the department is a legal anomaly isn't it? It makes him/her responsible for everything, when really much responsibility for day to day operation should fall on the shoulders of the departmental Chief Executive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 1 hour ago, joebean said: Too many bullshitters, pole climbers and accountants to effectively lead their functions. Chief Officers Group is not a club for chief administrators but a group of functional heads and leaders who can provide advice to CoMIN and take political decisions and transfer these to a strategic plan for implementation. A few Local Authorities with this affliction too... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 35 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said: A minister is there to take the lead on policy implementation, which originates from government & indeed Tynwald too The minister being the department is a legal anomaly isn't it? It makes him/her responsible for everything, when really much responsibility for day to day operation should fall on the shoulders of the departmental Chief Executive I would imagine, the cs inform the minister who informs the cabinet who informs the minister who informs the cs to go ahead with what they first informed the minister about, as the minister bowed to their alleged greater knowledge of the business in hand anyway..................... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 This is where an independent advisor would come into play, when they get around to appointing them! They would not owe allegiance to the CS? Could presumably ask the Minister to demand answers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 24, 2022 Share Posted July 24, 2022 9 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Removing the CEO isn't what that says exactly though. "A satisfactory resolution" to such conflicts in the last government meant that the Minister was sacked on at least one occasion (Beecroft) and probably another (Thomas if he was clashing with Greenhow, which he probably was). But in the case of the DoI, it isn't the (acting) CEO who is the problem, but those underneath who are much more difficult to shift. And the convention seems to be that politicians have no control over them - indeed should not interact with them in any way. Hence Ashford refusing to even speak to Ranson. The Departmental CEO is a relatively new position, they're not really there to manage the Department (which is why there sometimes needs to be 'Operations Managers' and the like) but to manage the Minister. If the Department is failing so badly that even the politicians notice, the CEO can be sacrificed without actually needing to change things and failure can continue. You only have to look at all the Departments who lost their CEOs in the last government: DHSC, DEFA, DHA, DED, DESC. Black only lasted a month afterward the Election. Only Treasury and Cabinet Office survived the period. The job in the spending Departments seems to be one for a very well-paid scapegoat. Perhaps Crookall resigned because he wanted to change things at the Department for Giving Money to Your Mates and was told the civil service didn't want it. We also need to remember that the CEOs are civil servants. The PSC T&C's apply to them. Any sacking would have to be via the procedures therein other the spectre of unfair dismissal would rear its head. The Minister can only start a long and protracted process. Often easier to get the CEO to leave by mutual agreement. Sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 26, 2022 Share Posted July 26, 2022 On 7/23/2022 at 8:43 PM, Gladys said: In a previous life, I have had to gather information for a couple of PQs. All the information gathered was subjected to close scrutiny before it was fed up to the government department who also scrutinised and questioned it. If it had been in any way inaccurate, there would have been hell to pay. All that was provided was facts, no interpretation of the facts. That was for the higher echelons. Perhaps that process is circumvented/truncated here? More likely FUBAR! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted July 26, 2022 Share Posted July 26, 2022 On 7/24/2022 at 10:56 AM, Wavey Davey said: It’s only the same as being a CEO and having your shareholders and directors checking up on what you’re doing via a board meeting every quarter where strategy and finances and other areas of interest to ensure the company is being run effectively are discussed. But the stakeholder - the taxpayer - can't be present at such meetings,& the Minister represents CoMin Everything is 'in house' and not especially transparent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.