Relationships in the Civil Service
There is still a huge unresolved issue hanging over the civil service, in terms of will your relationship make you ineligible to keep your job or be promoted. I have been amazed that the commentators seem to be split 50/50 on whether Setchell’s relationship should have meant she never got the job in the first place.
I very much tend to the point of view that you trust people’s professionalism unless they give you a reason not to. The most famous example of this is Mary Matalin and James Carville who were key strategists for Bush (41) and Clinton in 1992 despite being partners and then married to each other.
Obviously it is a potential conflict of interest for a civil servant if you have a partner who is say a journalist, or works for a political party, or if you yourself are involved in a political party. That is not the issue. The issue is how do you mitigate or manage the conflict of interest.
To actually refuse to employ someone because of their relationship is an incredibly extreme measure. Normally you manage a conflict of interest by making sure it is known and recorded and that the staff member concerned is clearly advised what can and can not be shared with people outside the office.
As I blogged last month, there have been numerous examples in the past of civil servants with a much greater conflict of interest that Setchell had.
I just find it amazing this assumption that one can’t trust a professional not to act unethically. It actually worries me if Wellington has become so tribal that professionalism is not trusted.
This doesn’t just apply to civil service jobs. To use myself as an example, I worked for National Leaders for eight years, yet in various capacities I quite often deal with Labour Party Ministers or Green MPs. Now on the odd occasions in the last two years I’ve been in a Minister’s office and sworn to secrecy over certain issues or thoughts. And never in a thousand years would I even think of breaking that confidence. I place great value on integrity and reputation and would never put partisan politics ahead of that. And I hugely appreciate that certain Ministers have trusted me enough to have a professional relationship with me.
It would be a great pity if a culture of distrust became so prevalent that the civil service, and the wider Wellington networks became Americanised where political loyalty is more relevant than professional conduct.
The great problem the SSC has, apart from dealing with its own credibility, is to provide guidance as to what does or does not constitute a barrier to employment and/or promotion. If the SSC fail to provide this guidance, then have no doubt that the line will be drawn at where Setchell was – relationships will prevent you from furthering your career, no matter how much personal integrity you have.
And if the line is drawn at being unable to hire someone as a third level manager because of their boyfriend, then I would expect the following classes of people will be unable to gain a senior role in the civil service:
- Anyone who has ever been a candidate for a political party
- Anyone who has ever been an office holder in a political party
- Anyone who has worked in a Minister’s private office (except as a department secondee)
- Anyone who has worked for a political party, a backbench MP, or a Research Unit
- Anyone whose partner is employed by a political party
If the Government and the SSC can not clearly state that one’s relationship will not lose you your job in the public service, then the political neutrality will be permanently lessened and scores of not hundreds of civil servants will find their careers stalled or over.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:16 am
The issue is how do you mitigate or manage the conflict of interest.
In olden days those civil servants leaking information could be disciplined for their breach of confidentiality, this is no longer expediant as governments today use a leak to fly a kite and any investigation into a breach is likely to hit upon a party appointee posing in civil servants role.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
There needs to be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the whole position of State Servants.
Being in the Service of the Crown they have extra penalties under the Crimes Act 1961. They have to be squeaky clean, but there is no evidence to show this. Gn the contrary there is enough evidence to show that corruption is pretty rife.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Slightly different but in the private sector you could (don’t know if you can now) use the conflict of interest to remove people. It happened with a married couple who worked for competing courier companies.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Yes Frank. There are more conflicts of interest than these simply dealth with ones. I quote, yet again the theodore Dalrymple article about Britain:
“British citizens pay obscenely large amounts of taxes, but get less and less in return for this, except an increasingly hostile state: “The National Health Service, where bureaucracies have hugely expanded and entwined their interests so closely with those of private suppliers and consultancies that it is difficult to distinguish public from private any longer. “”
We have self serving public servants sitting on multiple conflicting public and private boards, so many boards and committees no one can comprehend what is going on, making deals to shaft the tax payere on the wellington cocktail circuit…all in the pretence of a consultatory demo-crass-y
It never ends. Deal with the big conflicts of interest and opacity of the system and the rest will take care of itself.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am
> If the Government and the SSC can not clearly state that one’s relationship will not lose you your job in the public service…
I would’ve thought that there could be problems with some private sector companies too, especially those that lobby the government. If an individual cannot be trusted to work in the public sector because of who the person sleeps with, then the private sector may not want to hire them either. Inevitably that would mean that individuals would be less likely to be free and frank when being interviewed for important positions.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“Mary Matalin and James Carville”
I wonder if the loser had to do the dishes for two terms?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
will your relationship make you ineligible to keep your job or be promoted
This is the point exactly. Not only will you not get a job if you’re sleeping with the wrong person, by the same logic you might land a promotion by sleeping with the right one. It would have been OK, and as we now know it would have improved her employment prospects, if Setchell had been having a relationship with someone in the Labour Party.
This is insane
August 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
The SSC has gone from bad to worse under the dubious leadership of one Dr Prebble. What should be a whiter than white institution now has a muddy brown appearance. Good governance has been a expression that dare not speak its name during his tenure. One hopes a new government will excise the problem and install a person with at least a modicum of understanding of good governance principles and be prepared to stand up to bullying pollies.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
If whatever enquiry into Dr Prebble reveals he did mislead/lie I trust there will be other enquiries to reconsider his truthfulness in other issues and apply the appropriate sanction – Labours would be to move on no problem here of course. Off topic but reminded of other hi profile people of similar bent, has Winston paid it back yet?????
August 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
boys here feeling unwell if they have to be civil within their sextchel
relationships because theys don’t know how,
August 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The manner in which the Services of Police Commissioner DOONE was dispensed with. The subsequent promotion of Robinson, his progressing the advancement of his proteg’e Rickard to fill the maoridom gaps. The manner in which RANKIN’s services were dispensed with, and the subsequent promotion of her destroyer PREBBLE and his susequent actions does give cause for concern. What is of more concern though is the profusion of various highly paid Commissioners of the likes of Joris Debres, Ross Noonan and others. Surely they offer no confidence to an incoming National Goverment.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Setchell may not have been the one that could be trusted.
To suggest she was only a grade three risk as i think you did on an earlier post, is not to suggest that info that was sensetive may still not have fallen into the wrong hands.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 am
“Remember the nature of the job as communications manager means that they must be able to take calls at home, as well as at work. That in itself poses the situation whereby information could be inadvertently disclosed to the partner. Mention of other people who have decided to not discuss work in their private lives is not relevant in this case. This case is, if not totally unique, incredibly rare. E.O.S.”
Discuss