What will Hodgson do?
March 30th, 2007 at 7:11 am by David FarrarPaula Oliver in the NZ Herald correctly surmises that Pete Hodgson has the dilemma of sacking or backing the Auckland DHB Chairs.
If you do not sack them, then its one more tale of no accountability for avoidable blunders.
But there is considerable danger in sacking them. Amongst professional directors (those whose skills are advanced enough that they are sought by companies for the value they can add at a governance level) DHBs are already widely regarded as an appointment to be avoided at all costs. Their mix of appointed and elected members is a recipe for disaster, their lack of true independence from the central bureaucracy and the fact the Government makes all the big decisions on funding, yet leaves it to DHBs to take the blame for service, all make them highly unattractive. Hence the number of top class directors on DHB boards is already very low. Other crown boards such as SOEs do not have the same problems and have some incredible talent on them.
Now if you sack the three Chairs, this will dry up the talent supply even more. This will impact on DHB performance (governance does matter) and the problems get worse.
The real solution is to change the model, but I doubt the Government has the resolve to do that.
No tag for this post.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:09 am
It’s the classic unbalanced Board problem so endemic in public sector health, tertiary education, local government etc.
The Good ‘Ol Boys and Girls are quite happy to roll up every month for a nice catered lunch followed by a comfy snooze as the room darkens for the powerpoint presentations and then to claim a useful and generous honorarium.
Everything’s just peachy until a genuinely “Big Issue” or an awkwardly sly governance question arrives amongst the smoked salmon sandwiches. That’s when the wheels fall off, the group-think takes over and one or two individuals with an assertive, bluff front dominate discussions and carry the day.
And all present have their fingers crossed under the table.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am
He’ll scratch his biard and sniff like he always does.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Are you just dribbling from the mouth aagain Flashman or do you think you can speak with some degree of knowledge.
Vote:I don’t condone the decision for them leaving Beirre on the board from early on in the tendering process.
I recollect them sayinfg that the tender documents where purused by the govt office (or some such dept) and the process was cleared.
Theother thing that interests me is are DHL suggesting that they did not get the same documents as Ladtest, or are we to assume that what was discribed in the documents was not exactly what wes required of the successful tenderer and Dr Beirre did know what the board actuallt wanted.
If that was the case, i would suggest something more sinister was happening by all or some of those on the combined board.
Should we be looking for a kick back or three?
April 1st, 2007 at 7:12 am
Hi John: I certainly have seen the characters of which I write. And at very close range. Too often. But hey, that’s life.
One memorable moment was when a $25 million budgeted kool kollective got busy on a [I kid you not] a organisational “rebranding” project. Can you picture a Board Chairman excitedly jumping up and drawing full colour logos on the whiteboard?
Naturally this is your tax dollars working really, really hard – just for you.
Vote: