“non-executive directors of the interim board of NI Water met today informally with our CEO”
The board of the government owned Northern Ireland Water company has given its full support to the firm’s chief executive, Laurence McKenzie.
But, before making that statement of support, this is how Padraic White, the recently appointed interim Chairman of the interim Board of NI Water described today’s meeting
“The non-executive directors of the interim board of NI Water met today informally with our CEO to be brought up to speed with NI Water affairs in advance of our board meeting in September.”
So, it was an informal meeting of the NEDs and the CEO in advance of the September board meeting.
Not to mention the fact that 4 of those non-executive directors on the interim Board were appointed in June via an “emergency process” classified as an exception to the Code of Practice. There are only 2 other non-executive directors, one of which is Padraic White.
Adds As Nevin mentions below, it’s worth noting that it looks like the interim Chairman was also appointed through that “emergency process”. From the “Notes to editors” in the ministerial statement on that appointment
The non-executive directors have been appointed by the Minister by an emergency process. Although the Department discussed the process with the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPANI) it is classified as an exception to the Code of Practice. The appointment of the Chairman will mean that there will be a total of six non-executive Directors on the NIW Board.
‘the inquiry did not find any evidence to support the whistleblower’s allegations.’
That’s ‘internal’ inquiry’.
Which pretty much tells us all we need to know. About as much value as a Dutch Mountain Rescue Team.
‘no process was in place for potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.’
Which pretty much tells us all we need to know. The processes are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
William, the fact that these processes were not in place prior to 2009, might also have had a bearing on the later “shooting offences”.
What is interesting though, that this information only came to light after an FOI request, by the BBC.
One would have expected MacKenzie’s antennae to have gone up on hearing that.
ow, there’s another investigation I would love to see the Terms Of Reference for ,the identity of the person undertaking the “investigation”,, and the minutes of any follow-up board discussion ( to see just how seriously the board was taking the issue)
“Does it depend on the identity of the whistle blower?”
DRD rushed out some new whistleblowing guidelines in March 2009 in which they even dealt with matters raised by third parties:
“Staff are nevertheless reminded that they have a duty of care to ensure that any such complaint is investigated, particularly if it involves a security or safety issue, and to bring it, in confidence, to the attention of an appropriate senior officer.”
Unfortunately, some time previously a member of DRD staff had abysmally failed to respect the rights of someone who raised a safety issue in confidence.
“We will not tolerate the harassment or victimisation of anyone who raises a genuine concern, and, given these assurances, we hope you will raise your concern openly.”
Third parties, on the other hand, run the risk of harassment and victimisation by DRD and its ‘independent’ inquiries.
‘there’s another investigation I would love to see the Terms Of Reference for ,the identity of the person undertaking the “investigation”,, and the minutes of any follow-up board discussion ( to see just how seriously the board was taking the issue)’
Yes, those details would be very interesting indeed in such cases. I favour discontinuing ‘redaction’ on such matters because, if the allegations stick, they stick. If the allegations don’t stick, then that’s corruption at a level that may be far and above the seriousness of the initial claims themselves.
It would also help establish the extent of back scratching (corruption again) that goes on when establishing the TOR to these ‘investigations’ and just how flawed their findings may be as a result of nepotism, between people, between departments.
Let me ask a simple question, since it may be presumed that a good many MLAs may read Sluggers or are kept informed of ‘the mood of the people’.
Are there any MLAs out there with enough spine to look again at some of these seriously flawed historical investigations, while also examining the spectacular dodginess of NIW/DRD, and to press for these ‘investigations’ to be re-investigated independently this time? I mean, properly independently, which precludes the intervention of the fatally flawed NIAO.
Are there any MLAs with the guts to request information pertaining to what appears to be an ongoing culture of flawed investigations?
Are they prepared to press for a Public Inquiry into these matters and this time include ALL evidence as offered, as opposed to what often seems partial, in order to secure a ‘conviction’ (i.e. Declan Gormely’s missing testimony as offered to the IRT)?
and what an amazing press release on 27th by the interim chairman in the face of the well reported position adopted by elected politicians on the operation of this monopoly publically funded enterprise
@William
You can’t have external inquiries for everything. You’d paralyse the organisation and run up massive bills.
No organisation has processes that are 100% comprehensive and cover every eventuality. Processes and procedures change as the perception of risk changes and the priorities of the managers who are running the show change.
Your comment on redaction is a bit odd – if the allegations stick they should be made public, if they don’t stick it’s only because of corruption in the investigation process. That would imply that all allegations are true, which can’t be right. Or have I misunderstood?
‘MacKenzie’s antennae’
We need to stop this.
Antennae are the sensory organs of antrhopods (insects).
Spineless at that.
And sometimes they feed off humans.
I can’t see any analogy between a spineless insect that feeds off humans, and Wee Dangermite, so could every drop this comparison? Please?
and the interim chairmans info in the late press release that they are spending £365million a year(£1m a day)
William, ‘the vision of the NIAO is to promote accountability and the best use of public money’. So why doesn’t it do just that or is it suffering from blurred vision?
The million a day figure was coined back in Katherine Bryan’s day and referred to capital expenditure of £1 million per working day. So about £240 million which I think was the Capex budget in 2007/8.
‘You can’t have external inquiries for everything. You’d paralyse the organisation and run up massive bills.’
Perhaps the investigations need to be more vigorous, transparent and fair to begin with, rather than us witnessing, time and time again, investigations where the their findings, based on a capacity to ‘be economical with the truth’ or, in some instances, palpably fail those who are alleged to have some protection afforded them, are failed entirely by that system.
There’s human error, of course, but the NIA government machinery looks more like a widespread culture of destroying evidence, being economical with the truth, denying the accused a platform in which their voice can be heard (Declan Gormley, again) and that’s patently unfair and a clear denial of several people’s human rights.
Why was Mr. Gormley denied a voice? Why was that chap who raised ferry safety ‘outed’? Why are the DRD at the centre of these failings, and these denials of human rights, each and every time?
When a pattern emerges, it begins to look deliberate, and that’s why we need a Public Inquiry.
And does cost really come into it the small matter of establishing the truth? I think the good people of Derry would, quite rightly, say ‘no’. And although no one has died in these other matters, lives are often altered forever because of a culture of deliberate denial of human rights. There is also a human cost involved (to a ‘lesser’ degree, but something we, as a community, and MLAs, as a group, cannot afford to ignore.
“malairt 28 August 2010 at 5:13 pm”
The Commercial Director post was abolished with effect from 1/1/2010. The decision and process were tested with an external legal adviser and found to be legally compliant.
When was the restructuring decision taken?
How many posts were made redundant?
‘the vision of the NIAO is to promote accountability and the best use of public money’. So why doesn’t it do just that or is it suffering from blurred vision?’
Because it is in the pocket of the government, flawed, compromised and open to allegations of being more ‘corrupt’ that those it claims to investigate. (‘Corrupt’ in the sense that it does government’s bidding, as opposed to taking a bung, as the old footballing term runs)
Stevie Wonder’s guide-dog-in-the-street can see that.
“When was the restructuring decision taken?” You’d have to ask MacKenzie; it was announced to the Commercial team in mid November.
“How many posts were made redundant?” In the Commercial team? one.
“Because it is in the pocket of the government, flawed, compromised and open to allegations of being more ‘corrupt’ that those it claims to investigate”
Which is why John Dallat was calling for a more independent form of PAC, rather than members merely relying on the information coming from NIAO, which has after all been through the “clearance” process from the departments involved.
The making public of those Priestly emails, both to NIAO and Dixon has firmly highlighted just how close and integrated that machinery is.
Thanks. Apologies for grilling ya, but how many post in total ?
“it was announced to the Commercial team in mid November.”
And the post was gone by 01/12/10.
That’s remarkably quick, for any organisation!
Was there a call for voluntary redundancies prior to mid November.
“How many posts in total?” Across NIW there have been hundreds over the last 3 years.
The post was effectively gone when the announcement was made: the formal date was 1/1/10.
‘rather than members merely relying on the information coming from NIAO’
I think John may find it’s DISinformation.
By contrast, Chemical Ali begins to look like a trusted source.
‘the interim chairmans info in the late press release that they are spending £365million a year(£1m a day)’
Any indications on how much of that would be on Health and Safety?
The interim Chairman’s very keen on Health and Safety.
PT, it seems strange that they got rid of Gilmour when he seemed to be doing a good job: “William, I’ve just listened to the Gilmour presentation from May 2009. He expected £19 m savings by year end, some way ahead of the Assembly target, and during the course of the year, in association with Mellor, had nearly halved the expenditure on consultants.” [posted further up page]
It’s the position the becomes redundant Nevin, not the person…
I know it moving away from the core of this discussion about wrongdoing in high places but
the £1million investment a day is interesting as an important proportion of this assumed debt is taken on by PPP contracted companies with 25 year fixed price contracts having fixed annual payments guaranteed by Government and paid by you as water charge(soon)-not clear what public visibility there is on the internal working of these contracted entities.
I’m not clear on what you’re getting at here. The £1 million per day in NIW’s case is directly funded by DRD and has nothing to do with the PPP’s. If you look at NIW’s published annual accounts for 07/08 and 08/09 you can see where the figure came from.
PPP’s in any context are funded by the finance houses who back the concessionaires, and were dreamt up by Gordon Brown as a way of getting capital investment into government enterprises without adding to government debt. The fact that it costs considerably more in the long term, seemed to bother him not a whit.
Or have I misunderstood your point?
Peter Bunting was quoted in an Irish News article that he would get to the bottom of this before committing to anything. Does that mean he has got to the bottom of it last friday before he put his name to the board statement? Did he put his name to the board statement? The Irish News could follow that up to understand more.
[...] NI Water? And put his own placemen into position? Isn’t the current Chief Executive the man whom everyone supports?So which partners specifically does Antoinette McKeown, and the Consumer Council, no longer [...]