Comments on: ‘Timing, not the principle’ http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/ Island News, Sport, Community & Lifestyle Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:15:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Scarlett http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/#comment-56249 Scarlett Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:08:08 +0000 http://www.thisisguernsey.com/?p=39273#comment-56249 Thanks again for that, Matt, I hear what you're saying. Look forward to seeing events unfold over the coming months! Thanks again for that, Matt, I hear what you’re saying.

Look forward to seeing events unfold over the coming months!

Report abuse

]]> By: Matt Fallaize http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/#comment-56229 Matt Fallaize Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:37:04 +0000 http://www.thisisguernsey.com/?p=39273#comment-56229 Scarlett, I have to accept that you have a good point about the Policy Council and the Public Accounts Committee being part of the same organisation. Reflecting on the events that have followed the publication of the WAO report, I'm not sure that matters have been handled terribly well by either the Council or the Committee. Therein lies the central point you are making, perhaps. One thing that should be remembered, however, is that the Public Accounts Committee is a scrutiny/parliamentary committee, necessarily one removed from the executive arms of government [including Policy Council]. Although criticism of government not being sufficiently cohesive and 'joined-up' is often very fair, it would be very unhealthy for a scrutiny committee such as PAC to be constantly singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were, as the Policy Council. A certain degree of tension and confrontation within government is inevitable and healthy to keep democracy functioning adequately. Scarlett,

I have to accept that you have a good point about the Policy Council and the Public Accounts Committee being part of the same organisation.

Reflecting on the events that have followed the publication of the WAO report, I’m not sure that matters have been handled terribly well by either the Council or the Committee. Therein lies the central point you are making, perhaps.

One thing that should be remembered, however, is that the Public Accounts Committee is a scrutiny/parliamentary committee, necessarily one removed from the executive arms of government [including Policy Council].

Although criticism of government not being sufficiently cohesive and ‘joined-up’ is often very fair, it would be very unhealthy for a scrutiny committee such as PAC to be constantly singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were, as the Policy Council. A certain degree of tension and confrontation within government is inevitable and healthy to keep democracy functioning adequately.

Report abuse

]]> By: Scarlett http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/#comment-56158 Scarlett Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:17:36 +0000 http://www.thisisguernsey.com/?p=39273#comment-56158 Matt. Thank you for your detailed and considered response, which is informative and well balanced, as always. I appreciate what you're saying, however, this report was commissioned by essentially what is a States Committee, and challenged by another part of that same organisation. - it's rather like saying if I am left handed (right hand brain dominant) then my right hand/left brain cannot be linked to or held responsible for what my left hand does-! This disjointed thinking and total lack of coordination and communication by two elements of the same governing body (at considerable cost) is a classic example of why the Policy Council is now being forced to face the proverbial music and address the many issues that have gone on unchecked for years, not in it's own good time, as they have tried to dictate - (how much longer do they need, exactly?!) - but NOW. Matt. Thank you for your detailed and considered response, which is informative and well balanced, as always.
I appreciate what you’re saying, however, this report was commissioned by essentially what is a States Committee, and challenged by another part of that same organisation.
– it’s rather like saying if I am left handed (right hand brain dominant) then my right hand/left brain cannot be linked to or held responsible for what my left hand does-!
This disjointed thinking and total lack of coordination and communication by two elements of the same governing body (at considerable cost) is a classic example of why the Policy Council is now being forced to face the proverbial music and address the many issues that have gone on unchecked for years, not in it’s own good time, as they have tried to dictate – (how much longer do they need, exactly?!) – but NOW.

Report abuse

]]> By: Matt Fallaize http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/#comment-56079 Matt Fallaize Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:47:02 +0000 http://www.thisisguernsey.com/?p=39273#comment-56079 Scarlett, I have many faults, but blind loyalty to the Policy Council is usually not one of them. However, on this occasion perhaps your criticism of them is a bit harsh. You say that the Policy Council commissioned the WAO report on corporate governance. They did not. It was commissioned by the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee is one of the scrutiny committees which were established in 2004. They are independent from the executive/decision-making arms of the States. Consequently, the Public Accounts Committee is perfectly entitled to make recommendations, or invite the WAO to make recommendations, arising out of its report without seeking the approval or permission of the Policy Council. I am not a member of the Committee or the Council, but my understanding is that the position of the latter has been quite consistent in expressing the view that many of the WAO’s observations could be addressed by current initiatives [such as the spending review and strategic plan], and that what to do with the WAO report was a matter for those who commissioned it, i.e. PAC. Opinion will differ about Policy Council’s stance, but I don’t think it can be accused of having undertaken a u-turn. Scarlett,

I have many faults, but blind loyalty to the Policy Council is usually not one of them. However, on this occasion perhaps your criticism of them is a bit harsh.

You say that the Policy Council commissioned the WAO report on corporate governance. They did not. It was commissioned by the Public Accounts Committee.

The Public Accounts Committee is one of the scrutiny committees which were established in 2004. They are independent from the executive/decision-making arms of the States.

Consequently, the Public Accounts Committee is perfectly entitled to make recommendations, or invite the WAO to make recommendations, arising out of its report without seeking the approval or permission of the Policy Council.

I am not a member of the Committee or the Council, but my understanding is that the position of the latter has been quite consistent in expressing the view that many of the WAO’s observations could be addressed by current initiatives [such as the spending review and strategic plan], and that what to do with the WAO report was a matter for those who commissioned it, i.e. PAC.

Opinion will differ about Policy Council’s stance, but I don’t think it can be accused of having undertaken a u-turn.

Report abuse

]]> By: Scarlett http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/11/09/timing-not-the-principle/#comment-56075 Scarlett Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:52:55 +0000 http://www.thisisguernsey.com/?p=39273#comment-56075 ...so this sudden, detailed 'revisionist' explanation of the Policy Council's inexcusable 'Council says narrr' previous response, with absolutely NO proper reasons, comes hot on the heels of the public outcry about their intention to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it....hmmm. Is it coincidence? Perhaps the realisation that perhaps they SHOULD be acting in the best interests of the people they're supposed to represent, instead of getting precious about some well placed, much needed criticism from a body that THEY commissioned? ....or perhaps just the belated recognition that they need the votes of their critics to keep their jobs? Seriously, if our States was a commercial concern, none of these politicians would have a job, and most would be considered unemployable. …so this sudden, detailed ‘revisionist’ explanation of the Policy Council’s inexcusable ‘Council says narrr’ previous response, with absolutely NO proper reasons, comes hot on the heels of the public outcry about their intention to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it….hmmm.

Is it coincidence? Perhaps the realisation that perhaps they SHOULD be acting in the best interests of the people they’re supposed to represent, instead of getting precious about some well placed, much needed criticism from a body that THEY commissioned?

….or perhaps just the belated recognition that they need the votes of their critics to keep their jobs?

Seriously, if our States was a commercial concern, none of these politicians would have a job, and most would be considered unemployable.

Report abuse

]]>