The Jersey Civil Service

[ole razzy]

Who or what is the Jersey civil and what do they stand for?

Do they really have a genuine interest in providing a good and efficient public service or is it just a job like any other?

And are they really in a job for life with a gold plated pension?

What powers do they really yield?

Are they, as many suggest, really quite bloated and inefficient?

If so then who are the fat ones that we can do well without and who are trim and worth preserving? Can we distinguish? Is it our job to?

Are the union's right to cry foul when job cuts are mentioned? Isn't it more important to identify where there is duplication, inefficiency and blatant empire building....just for the sake of it?

Why has it been left to grow like topsy under Walker, Le Sueur and Ozouf? A 30% increase in only a few years! Weren't these people supposed to be hard line right wingers, business people with acumen, keen on low taxes and a small administration? Where were their political values whilst all this was growth was happening? Did they confuse growing a business with growing a government? Did power, control, influence, ego and vanity play a hand?

Questions, questions, questions!

But rather then pontificate why don’t we use this thread to identify failings, highlight the specific departmental weaknesses, and even identify spurious job titles?  Whether they are old school bully boy bastards who sit on their fat arse all day doing FA or liberal lefty types trying desperately hard to please – why don’t we shine a light on them and see if we can’t all come up with some savings!

Here’s your starter for 10 – The Director of Lifelong Learning at ESC. Probably a grade 13. Comes with a secretary. Two posts plus overheads gone! Saving you and me near on £200,000K! You see it really is that easy!
 

[Chevalier Blanc]

Well can we take it that Ian Black will take early retirement and that is for the euro mistake?
If so why does Le Sueur not resign as he was the politician in charge at the time.

[Dundee]

Ian Black and several others in the treasury are not up to the position, more mistakes are going to occur.

In general I agree with what SSS is saying in respect of Civil servants managing policy etc. but I think this is partly due to the poor quality of politicians many of whom are not well educated, lack experience in the field that they are governing, and they have only entered the political arena as they are no great shakes in the real world, or their businesses are not fairing that well and they need to top up their salary.

Of course both Civil servants and politicians will take the option of continuing with the status quo, outdated practices and are reluctant to tackle or grasp the issues that need addressing, often because they would need extra funds and manpower.

Some of the Civil servants that I have dealt with have been extremely arrogant, unhelpful, and disingenuous, these are the ones that have the handle on policies! Others that I have dealt with have been extremely helpful and supportive but they have little to do with policy and are often short of funds.

 

[rico sorda]

I Was sent this maybe i should send it to all civil servants/politicians


Summary of the Nolan Committee's First Report on Standards in Public Life



At the request of the Prime Minister, the Nolan Committee has spent six months inquiring into standards in British public life. We have concentrated on Members of Parliament, Ministers and Civil Servants, executive Quangos and NHS bodies.


We cannot say conclusively that standards of behaviour in public life have declined. We can say that conduct in public life is more rigorously scrutinised than it was in the past, that the standards which the public demands remain high, and that the great majority of people in public life meet those high standards. But there are weaknesses in the procedures for maintaining and enforcing those standards. As a result people in public life are not always as clear as they should be about where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. This we regard as the principal reason for public disquiet. It calls for urgent remedial action.
This leaflet summarises the Committee's unanimous conclusions and lists its recommendations.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

Selflessness

Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.


These principles apply to all aspects of public life. The Committee has set them out here for the benefit of all who serve the public in any way.

rs

[rogueelement]

I agree entirely with CB.
It is all very well and good to call the civil servants to account whilst the Minister in charge walks away Scot free.
TLS has proven one thing only , that he was incompetent from day one as a Treasury minister and following that Euro fiasco and the introduction of GST  and his ludicrous ,0-10- 20 means 20 tax initiatives , he really should have the good grace to resign.
I know he is a great bloke , but this is simply not a way to run a Government . Failure on at least three fronts should mean automatic resignation/dismissal. If The states was examined by the JFSC , I doubt they would find a single person "Fit for purpose" It really is quite tragic that the Fvckwits can continue to Govern , whilst those that put Jersey where it is today are driven from these shores.
I look forward to zero Trust companies and 140 superannuated ,freeloaders without a hint of experience ,regulating them.
 Not too far away actually!
Add on the Jersey Finance Quango , also supported by you and me, but additionely by various Law firms , who manage to stick their snouts in the trough when these hugely important meetings are held in Dubai , Mumbai , Hong Kong,,, Strangely enough , areas which are competing with Jersey and you have to wonder .....It is not just the Civil Servants who are crap , add on various "Corporate Bodies " who have combined to screw this Island big time , whilst pretending to do a decent job.

[Pomme de terre]

The teaching of Jerriais to school children. We could easy save between £50,000 and £100,000 there.

By all means continue the teaching, but voluntarily, for the love of it.

[Deputy Dawg]

A good anology of the Civil Service in Jersey is to think of a very overweight american (lets call him Joe). The amount of calories that Joe is stuffing into his face is the tax it takes to feed him/them. The amount of calories he should be eating is the amount we all expect a civil service to be able to run on and still keep us all healthy.

Now lets cut Joe vertically in half and look at what is there. We have the internal organs, the bits that we really need to keep the process running. The heart (health), Lungs (Environment), kidney (education), Intestines (Law) etc, but due to the fact that he is very overwieght and carrying much too much fat, some of these organs are diseased and not working properly some carrying large amounts of fat themselves. We then move to the Outside, the skin. This is you and me, the product that keeps it all together and benefits from the internal organs working as they should and between the two areas you have masses of fat. This fat is made up of the useless middle and upper management and in some cases politicians.

Now, how do we get Joe down to size?
Well a start is to put him on a diet. Cut down on the amount he is easting, but that alone will not do much good as he will feel lethargic and sit around just as much as before, it will be a low slow job to get Joe fit at this rate.

So we need to put him into training. Make him work his body as much as possible. The heart will start to work harder, the lungs, kidneys, intestine all start to work harder, and this will be hard work for the internal organs, but will benefit them in the long term. After a couple of months we see that Joe is starting to shed his fat. His body is realising what it needs to work to best advantage and is getting rid of all the bits it doesn't need. The nurses teachers, police, firemen, civil service that is Joe's internal organs are starting to say "this fat is not benefiting this body" and it should be removed.

The issue is who is there to listen? The fat, being the middle and upper management are not going to remove themselves, they would rather see the internal organs made smaller and less effective such is their greed for calories. What is needed is someone who can both listen to the body and do what is needed in order to get all the internal organs running as they should.

I can't see this being a politician, as they tend to rely on the votes of civil servants. What is needed is a hatchet man to come in and listen to the organs.



If not Joe is going to die of a heart attack in the near future.

[moot]

Very good  Deputy! When a bank or other large business wishes to make whole sale redundancies they bring in a hatchet man / woman from outside who doesn't know anyone in the business and therefore has no emotional ties with them. He / she arrrives, listens to what's required and get's on with the cull. Often he / she "uses" a senior manager who thinks his job will be safe if he helps not realising that he's digging his own grave. Once the job is done he gets culled himself so a new lean business can start afresh efficiently. If the hatched person was brought in permanently he/ she will be culled at the final stage. Clean start !  Awful business but that's life in the real world !  

[rogueelement]

I am available at fairly cheap rates. Say 10% of a 2 year annual saving . Damn i,d be a multi millionnaire overnight! (well given that I started on a reasonable sum to begin with).
Maggie Thatcher brought in a bloke from America, got rid of thousands of jobs in steel and the coal industry , to be fair those were almost real jobs ,can anyone apart from that lumpen knob Body who writes for the JEP defend our civil service?

[Chevalier Blanc]

I was telling middle to top managers that they are so willing to go along with getting rid of manual workers that in the end there will be to many civil servants for the work force and then they will get rid of you. They laughed, they just could not see that they were making the path clear for them to go. Suicide! What makes it even worse it was not an outsider who did the sacking etc but themselves. I spoke to one the other day and he is doing anything and everything he can to keep his job. He said "i did not see it coming but you did and we were fools".

[Dundee]

The teaching of Jerriais to school children. We could easy save between £50,000 and £100,000 there.

By all means continue the teaching, but voluntarily, for the love of it.

Surely better to cut English, leave to volunteers and save millions 

[imacrappaud]

Spartacus, I would be happy to help for the price of a house, perhaps with a swimming pool but would just probably be happy with a decent house.

I would like to know what training our politicians and civil servants receive. I used to be in a change management role and for that role I was given substantial training, it was a while ago so I cant remember all of the names of the training but one that has stuck with me is project management, Prince something. Anyhow, during the time in that role I realised how much people were against change but I am normally good with people so was able to overcome that and bring them round to the idea. What may have helped in some cases is that the company I worked for at the time sent every, or at least the vast majority of their employees on a course that explained why change is good and that it does not necessarily mean losing your job but in fact is somewhat aimed at making the job you do more productive, teaching you to sort the wheat from the chaff I think is the expression.

Anyway, I think I sort of went off there but my point/question is do our civil servents get such training? Is it obligatory or can they take the I know better anyway aproach? And if they all do such training, does anyone bother to ensure they are utilising it or just carrying on because they can't be bothered to "embrace change". Sorry, about the quotes but it is an often used expression!

[Deputy Dawg]

I don't believe it’s all a case of training or not. I know many people who have been on numerous training courses and I still wonder how they breathe without written instructions!

Others of course are just in a position and abuse what little knowledge they have. I will re-tell a little story I heard about our youngest ever elected politician and let you decide. Our Mr Macon, on a table not very far from my own in a house of imbibing, was arguing with a friend of his who would appear to be a bona fide architect from his knowledge during said debate. The important bits I overheard where "but the design I submitted was eco friendly and would have saved the householder thousands, not only that it DID look really nice". A bit more blurb from Mr Macon and then the sentence that nearly made me choke on my speckled hen, "I don't pass anything with round windows, or anything not made of granite". More discussion between these two specifically and a point well made that Mr Macon has absolutely didley squat knowledge about architecture or design and that to use the two points about windows and walls as his sole reason to deny applications was appalling. Unfortunately loud music starting up prevented me from hearing much after that.

The point is, Mr Macon, although a politician (by name anyway) is still a civil servant as he draws his wage from the taxpayer and yet he is in a position that he is clearly unfit to be in. I would also like to see how many plans have been turned down with round windows or not made from granite since Mr Macon started on the planning application panel at Planning and Environment, just to make sure that the discussion I overheard wasn't hypothetical.

---added---

What do the other members of the panel use as their means of defining good architecture? Are they similarly afflicted?

[ole razzy]

Fraid so, and I say this from hearing similar stories from two friends of mine who are architects. The young man in question appears to have very little understanding of design and makes arbitrary decisions based upon a very provintial and twee personal taste. That's not to say he is a bad politician per se, although I dont really know anything about him as he's been off the radar since the election, but he's doing a job in planning in which appears to be manifestly out of his depth. I dont think training is going to help somebody like that, it would simply be better if he was moved into another department where his personal interests have more resonance.

[Dylan]

Where would you recommend? Perhaps the junior end of education? Say Kindergarten??