What are the material differences between the job discription for the Chief Executive of Policy and Resources and Chief Executive to the Council of Ministers

1 2 4 0 /5(1781)

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, 4th FEBRUARY 2003

BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HERISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR

Question 1

1. Would the President outline  the material differences  between the job  description of the current  Chief Executive position of the PolicyandResourcesDepartmentand the job descriptionofthe recently advertised position of Chief ExecutivetotheCouncilof Ministers andHeadof the Public Service?
2. Would thePresident confirm whetherornot the job descriptionofthe position occupiedby the recently departed Chief Executive of the PolicyandResourcesDepartmentwasdesignedinsuch a mannerasto provide the basis for the newpositionof Chief Executive as recently advertised?
3. Would the President confirm whether or not the performancemanagementregimeinplace for chief officers was applied in the case of the recently departedChief Executive?
4. Given that the former Chief Executive'sperformancewas described as exemplary' in the statement made by President on 21st January 2003, how then did hebecome ineligible fortherecently advertised position?
5. Whatimprovements,if any, will bemadeto the appointment process for senior civil servantsfollowing this episode?

Answer

1. (a) There are major differences between thetwo job descriptions. In the new jobdescription -

(i ) t h e Chief Executive is given specific responsibility for leading and directing the work of the Public

Service during the transitional period in preparation for the ministerial system of government. This work will include the development of new structures and organisation of government, in accordance with the States decision of 28th September 2001;

( ii ) i n the ministerial system the Chief Executive will have direct responsibility for the discharge of

States wide policy objectives set by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. He will be the Head of the Island's Public Service and lead and direct the other Chief Officers. He will be the first ever States of Jersey employee to have such responsibilities;

(i ii ) t h e job description for the Chief Executive to the Policy and Resources Committee was prepared and

approved in March 1998 in very different circumstances. This was a full 12 months before the States' decision  to  appoint  a  body  to  review  the  Machinery  of  Government  in  Jersey  (the Clothier' Panel) and clearly at that stage it was not possible to predict the outcome of a review of the Island's system of government. The job description reflected the situation that existed at that time, and the primary roles of the job were –

ad v is in g a n d supporting the Policy and Resources Committee;

d ir e c ti n g , c o ordinating and promoting the strategic policies of the States, and ad v is in g o n s trategic policy issues on an inter-Committee basis.

C l early, these responsibilities did not include being Head of the public service.

( b ) No. As I have already said in answer to question (a) the job description for the post of Chief Executive of the  Policy  and  Resources  Department  was  drawn  up  in  March  1998,  before  the  Review  of  the Machinery of Government had taken place and long before a States decision on the future machinery of government. It was therefore impossible to predict if and when any changes might occur and the form

that they might take.

( c ) Whilst I was not a party to them, I can confirm that the processes associated with Chief Officers'

Performance Review and Appraisal were applied in the case of Mr. John Mills.

( d ) Mr. Mills was not ineligible for the recently advertised post. He applied for and was a serious contender

for the position. However, in all selection processes, there is a judgement that has to be made on the relative strengths of those who have applied for a position. In this particular case, Mr. Mills was unfortunate in coming up against other candidates whose skills and experience more closely matched the requirements of the new job description.

( e ) Under the supervision of the Appointments Commission, the processes that were applied in filling the

Chief Executive's position were of a very high standard. I believe, therefore, that few, if any, changes will need to be made to the approach that was adopted. No doubt, however, the States Human Resources Department and the Appointments Commission will keep these matters under close review as they move on to the next set of senior appointments.

Question 2

1. Would the President confirm that the previous Policy andResourcesCommitteedecidedto –

( i)  create a new post that would subsume the post presently occupied by its Chief Executive Officer? ( ii ) invite applications for that new post other than from its Chief Executive Officer?

( i ii) install the successful candidate in the new post prior to the expiry of the present Chief Executive's

contract?

2. Would thePresident state why the Committee did not time the starting of the new post to coincide with the end of the present Chief Executive'scontract, thereby saving a considerablesumof public moneyshould the current incumbentnotbesuccessful?

Answer

2. (a) (i) Yes. Indeveloping the proposals containedin the proposition Machinery of Government: proposed departmental structure and transitional arrangements P.70/2002', the previous Policy and Resources Committee determined that, as a natural consequence of the Chief Minister's Departmenttakingon most of the functions of the Policy andResourcesDepartment,together with other major functions, the newpost of Chief Executive to theCouncilofMinisters and Head of the Public Service which would also assume the role of head of the Chief Minister's Department, would naturally subsume the role of Chief Executive Officer to the Policy and ResourcesCommittee.

(i i)  Y e s. The Committee decided to invite applications from all those who felt themselves competent to

carry out the new role. This did not exclude Mr. Mills.

(i i i) Y  es. The Chief Executive will guide, advise and influence the transition to the ministerial system. Given this key role the Committee felt it was essential he should be appointed as soon as possible.

( b ) As I have made clear in response to the Deputy 's earlier questions, the post of Chief Executive to the

Council of Ministers and Head of the Public Service is a new role. This requires different skills and behaviours to the previous post of Chief Executive to the Policy and Resources Committee.

T w o o ther courses of action were open to the Committee -

(i ) w  e could have retained Mr. Mills until the end of his contract and appointed the new Chief Executive

at that time. Superficially, this would have been the cheapest option. However, it would have delayed the introduction of a more efficient system of government and cost the Island considerably more in the longer term; or

(i i)  w e could have retained Mr. Mills in post and sought to appoint the new Chief Executive. However,

this would have resulted in an expensive and unworkable duplication, it would have seriously affected the ability of the new Chief Executive to perform his job and it is doubtful that any high calibre candidate would have accepted the post under these circumstances.

T h e C  ommittee has no doubt that the decisions it took were in the best interests of the public services and

of the Island as a whole."