Tim's Time's Up

[Non-Believer]

35 minutes ago, joebean said:

When the CM says that culture needs to change, it needs to start with the reintroduction of honesty as an absolute principle. He has made a start by clearing some desks but the culture might be more difficult to address in the short term, at least. 

As ever with these things, it'll not stop until the Riot Act is read and/or somebody is made an example of.

Whilst people are simply allowed to slink away un-named and unaccountable with huge payoffs there is no compunction to do otherwise.

Although getting rid of Greenhow might have been the first step down that long road.

[joebean]

43 minutes ago, 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? 

Yes, I have similar experience, again in a previous life. Much depends on the quality of the CEO and the quality of the CEO is determined by the recruitment process and then, the quality of management and the culture that the CEO works within. Here, that was lacking and the CEOs and CS operated as a powerful group who determined the way they worked and the environment they worked in. Weak CMs over a number of administrations failed to set the standard or exert power over the Executive. Any CEO who was not part of the Club would find life difficult and some chose to go rather than work in that environment. 
I look forward to some proper investigation into the evidence submitted to the recent Tribunal and, maybe some thought about the stories that were spun to past Committees and to Tynwald, but I doubt our politicians really have the stomach for it. 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, joebean said:

Yes, I have similar experience, again in a previous life. Much depends on the quality of the CEO and the quality of the CEO is determined by the recruitment process and then, the quality of management and the culture that the CEO works within. Here, that was lacking and the CEOs and CS operated as a powerful group who determined the way they worked and the environment they worked in. Weak CMs over a number of administrations failed to set the standard or exert power over the Executive. Any CEO who was not part of the Club would find life difficult and some chose to go rather than work in that environment. 
I look forward to some proper investigation into the evidence submitted to the recent Tribunal and, maybe some thought about the stories that were spun to past Committees and to Tynwald, but I doubt our politicians really have the stomach for it. 

Yes, I do wonder if the nexus between the department and the Minister is too direct and misses out on an independent scrutineer role.  So the departments feeds directly to the Minister rather than through a 'disinterested' filter.  You would think that should be the role of the Cabinet Office, but seems not to be the case. 

[Dirty Buggane]

It all seems to of started off well with a few big scalps going, But the problem is the endemic lying that seems to have become the norm in the civil service. It probley started with a few bits of iffy information getting passed as fact and amazed when it was believed, they then found out the power they possess. I think it goes far deeper than the heads of departments, they have over time  come to believe they are invisible and untouchable. This must be proved wrong if the greater public are to have any trust in the present bunch of clowns. A good witch  hunt is needed with amnesty for whistle blowers.

Will this work, I have not a clue. But as good a chance as any.

[finlo]

1 minute ago, Dirty Buggane said:

It all seems to of started off well with a few big scalps going, But the problem is the endemic lying that seems to have become the norm in the civil service. It probley started with a few bits of iffy information getting passed as fact and amazed when it was believed, they then found out the power they possess. I think it goes far deeper than the heads of departments, they have over time  come to believe they are invisible and untouchable. This must be proved wrong if the greater public are to have any trust in the present bunch of clowns. A good witch  hunt is needed with amnesty for whistle blowers.

Will this work, I have not a clue. But as good a chance as any.

Well the first hurdle is the amnesty for the whistle blower!

[Non-Believer]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, I do wonder if the nexus between the department and the Minister is too direct and misses out on an independent scrutineer role.  So the departments feeds directly to the Minister rather than through a 'disinterested' filter.  You would think that should be the role of the Cabinet Office, but seems not to be the case. 

Perhaps this is the reason for the Independent Ministerial Advisor roles that were revealed a few months back?

[BriT]

I seem to recall reading the phrase Tim Glover Puppet somewhere. And that’s all he appears to be. 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Perhaps this is the reason for the Independent Ministerial Advisor roles that were revealed a few months back?

Might be, but it depends on the real role.  Is it to advise on and the interpret the information or check the processes to be sure it is valid?

It is just not clear.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Gladys

[Dirty Buggane]

Thats all of them seem to be puppets, on the civil service strings.Alf included

Edited July 23, 2022 by Dirty Buggane

[hissingsid]

I really think the use of the term…hopefully…did Tim no favours when he was in DOI he used it continually and it gave the impression he was uncertain, which he probably was, and that does not do.   If you are heading up any sort of project to imply that your finger is not on the pulse is unwise.

[HiVibes]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Yes, I do wonder if the nexus between the department and the Minister is too direct and misses out on an independent scrutineer role.  So the departments feeds directly to the Minister rather than through a 'disinterested' filter.  You would think that should be the role of the Cabinet Office, but seems not to be the case. 

The idea is you are meant to vote MHK's with half a brain, but instead you lot vote Posties and fat mouths that sit in line with your ignorant outdated views.

[Stu Peters]

Will Halsall - thank you, and I'm sorry I didn't realise you were posting under your own name. You're absolutely correct in saying you have more expertise than me in public transport (probably more than anyone in the entire public sector here).

So in terms of running these services, I defer absolutely to your mastery of the subject (Metrolink in Manchester was one service I DID like and use often), but still think it's unreasonable to expect a minister to double or triple check everything his CEO tells him as a fact, especially knowing the minister will be answering a parliamentary question. 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. Like I said, if he was told lies (or even 'selective' information) there needs to be a proper remedy for that, but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

[HiVibes]

1 minute ago, Stu Peters said:

Will Halsall - thank you, and I'm sorry I didn't realise you were posting under your own name. You're absolutely correct in saying you have more expertise than me in public transport (probably more than anyone in the entire public sector here).

So in terms of running these services, I defer absolutely to your mastery of the subject (Metrolink in Manchester was one service I DID like and use often), but still think it's unreasonable to expect a minister to double or triple check everything his CEO tells him as a fact, especially knowing the minister will be answering a parliamentary question. 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. Like I said, if he was told lies (or even 'selective' information) there needs to be a proper remedy for that, but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

The minister is the department , if you don't have a grip on day to day business then of course you will end up in situations like this, its not checking up on people its knowing your brief.

[Numbnuts]

8 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Will Halsall - thank you, and I'm sorry I didn't realise you were posting under your own name. You're absolutely correct in saying you have more expertise than me in public transport (probably more than anyone in the entire public sector here).

So in terms of running these services, I defer absolutely to your mastery of the subject (Metrolink in Manchester was one service I DID like and use often), but still think it's unreasonable to expect a minister to double or triple check everything his CEO tells him as a fact, especially knowing the minister will be answering a parliamentary question. 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. Like I said, if he was told lies (or even 'selective' information) there needs to be a proper remedy for that, but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

He shouldnt have been told lies . No CS should be lying to a MHK , MLC or to member of public even. But they do !!! All the time. Alf Cannan needs to get a grip on the whole culture and soon. To do so will mean MHK's and the likes are in with a chance of doing their job without ridicule.  

Edited July 23, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Non-Believer]

17 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

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. Like I said, if he was told lies (or even 'selective' information) there needs to be a proper remedy for that, but I worry that you're blaming the wrong person here.

Unfortunately it has been essentially proven that such things need to happen; because CEOs (and others) have been provenly found to be untrustworthy. An inescapable fact. When they have been proven to be reliably honest then your ideal can be implemented.

The only thing that can change this situation is a huge, democratically-driven change in PS culture. That has to come from elected members imposing a discipline that should surely be a basic tenet; but which appears to have fallen by the way.

Those who are found to be be corrupt - yes corrupt - in public service need to be publicly addressed and emptied out. Accountability enforced. Examples made if necessary. It's the only way that we can get the governance of this Island back on track.