accountability and transparency

So how accountable can one hold a government department, and how transparent should the process be? Reason I ask is that after a few incidents I wrote a letter full of questions to a high ranking Fire and Rescue service official. It identified a number of serious issues and some misconduct. To date, after 11 months of to and fro correspondence and an investigation by two of their officers I've been fed placatory clap trap and been given some general responses about their broad policies to overcome any problems.

Besides some grudging admissions about two points they haven't even directly aknowledged the issues that I've raised or admitted that anything I identified has happened, let alone identified what steps they will take to ensure there's no repeats. So I'm still slogging away at it, as I've got nothing to lose, I'm a volunteer so they can't sack me:D . I figure that with an election coming up I can make things a bit more uncomfortable for them, but in the end I'm not playing politics, I want them to fix things before someone dies!:mad:

To get to my question, if I identify a specific, serious shortcoming, am I unreasonable to assume that they should either disprove my allegations or admit that a problem exists and to identify how they will fix it and in what time frame? Maybe I'm being naive:confused: The trouble is, it's more than just one shortcoming and any one of them has the potential to cause harm to life and/or property.

Mick

Isn't Workcover another avenue that can be used?

Take it to the ombudsman.

Stuart,
contacted Workplace Health and Safety as there was one specific WH&S issue. they didn't want to get very involved, not nearly as much as if it was a private company. Reason being (and the manager I spoke to let it slip in not so many words) that they're all public servants and move from dpartment to department to further their careers. It's considered to be very poor form to not close ranks. This was confirmed by someone (high ranking) in the fire service, but who agrees with me, but is pretty much powerless to do anything. WH&S basically contacted the dept. and asked to be kept informed. If it was a private individual or a commercial entity who was compalined about they would have hounded him and made him give specific details, work safety plans etc.

Ernknot,
contacted the Ombudsman and they want a few lines about my problems. I told them that I have a letter with 108 questions dealing with serious matters which aren't being addressed and I was told to reduce it to a few lines for them.:confused: I'm thinking of contacting the Crime and Misconduct commission to see if they are any better. After that it's the opposition (especially with an election coming) and as a last resort the press. I'm not on a witch hunt, don't want any heads to roll (but they've gone to such lengths now to try to make it all go away, that I believe some heads will roll when it does eventually get out). don't want any demotions, I just want them to say "yeah, we can see where there are some problems, where mistakes have been made, and this is what we're going to do to fix it" A few apologies would be in order too, not just to me, but quite a few volunteers that were treated with absolute disdain.:mad:

Mick

Mick
The Ombudsman is your next avenue. Give them a few lines pointing them to your attached 108 point list. Take out any emotive statements and keep to facts that can be substantiated. If you don't you might end up having to defend your statements rather than attack their procedures.

They will close ranks and as such they will have the collective wisdom of the department on their side. Initially they will try to discredit what you have stated word by word. If that doesn't work then you will be the next target so ask a few colleages to countersign the letter.

So you are not dismissed as a trouble maker tell them you are not after heads but a change to reduce risk. If heads roll in the process then so be it.
You will have to let this go at some stage otherwise you run the risk of it affecting other things in your life.

Sometimes an itch can never be satisfied no matter how hard you scratch it so be prepared to accept that you have done all you can and a lot more than others have been prepared to do.

Good on you for standing up for what you see as important, Mick. I'd go the Ombudsman route as well, although you might want to make a complaint to the CMC as well if you think there has been misconduct. Just be sure of your facts and you have nothing to fear. The question that has to be asked, of course is: "why are they trying to hide?" Is there anything potentially embarrassing to the Minister (apart from the letter you refer to)? If so, you will find it much more difficult to get anywhere.

Mick,
Early in my career I was priveleged to work for a bloke who knew a bit about beaurocracy.

He drummed two things into me about this stuff.
1) Numbers are cheap.

It doesn't cost anything to open a new file, so the minute the sniff of a new job came our way, we'd give it a new job number and a file. I still use that system and it is amazing how much stuff would get lost or thrown away, but gets filed because there's somewhere to put it.

2) One letter per subject.

Again, if you write a letter making multiple points, and one of them can't be answered, you are less likely to get a response. One letter with 108 points is the sort of thing that gets thrown from dept to dept..... well you know about that.

Why not break them down into five or six (or even one) and write one letter per subject.

I would start one at a time with the same letter, asking for response on one topic only, and reminding that in the event of an accident, your letter constitutes formal adviced of the situation and individual has has a duty of care to investigate or could him/her/itself become personally liable.

Ensure that you do this with your local member as well!

"Please bring in a trailer, we're moving the Journeyman Mick files to new premises."

Cheers,

P

Mick

Midge's advice is very sound - years of dealing with bureaucrats (and a little while being one - but I escaped) makes it clear that one topic per letter is the way to go.

Start with the most easily accepted (by the relevant person you are dealing with) of your issues, get a track record for being reasonable and right and then start working up the list to your more extreme (again from their perspective) points. Don't allow yourself to get deflected and as the football coaches say, keep to your gameplan.

Best of luck and don't give up. Doing this stuff properly means that public servants end up doing the rioght thing for us, the public. It is only if we let them get away with it that they stop being our servants and become our masters.

Cheers

Jeremy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

To get to my question, if I identify a specific, serious shortcoming, am I unreasonable to assume that they should either disprove my allegations or admit that a problem exists and to identify how they will fix it and in what time frame? Maybe I'm being naive:confused: The trouble is, it's more than just one shortcoming and any one of them has the potential to cause harm to life and/or property.

Mick

---

To answer your question ... you are being unreasonable;).

They won't admit there is a problem (causes more pain for them) and won't disprove your allegations because they need to prove you wrong and in order to do that they will most probably expose themselves.:eek:

What midge said sounds like a great idea. It focuses them. I might use that myself one day.

Keep up the fight, if safety is being compromised it's just a matter of time before someone is hurt or worse.

Thanks all,
my initial letter resulted in a 3 week investigation which produced a report which I know is quite damning. I have lodged an FOI for the report because I know that it will back up my allegations. They've got the dirt on themselves and obviously don't want to release it. They can't shred the document because too many people know of its existence. They are playing a waiting game, hoping that I'll give up and go away. They don't know how stubborn I can be.;)

My question (this thread) was more about what level of accountability should be expected. Ie: If, for instance I say:
"Mr X did this, on xx/xx/xxxx date at xx:xx hours and your radio transcripts will bear this out, these actions were clearly against your procedures what actions are being taken to ensure this will not happen again?"

Then is:
"we have a world class service and always strive to better our performance and address any issues that may arise"
a good enough response? I didn't think so, but maybe I'm being unreasonable in expecting:
"We have looked at the issue you have raised, the officer has been reprimanded and will apologise to those affected by his actions, we are implimenting the following measures to prevent similar occurences: etc etc etc"

If I stuff something up on a job I will apologise profusely to the client, fix the problem and then work out a method/procedure/whatever to ensure it doesn't happen again. Mistakes cost me money. In emergency services they can cost lives.

Am I being unreasonable?

Mick

Mick,

Do the people that you are addressing your complaint to have the ability to test your statement for truth/accuracy?
i.e. When Mr X was naughty, will there be a recording or transcript of events that they can use to apply a 'truth test' to your allegation?

If not, then the senior management will not be able to do much more than investigate Mr X and hope that someone other than you can provide 'proof'. These sort of investigations can go nowhere fast, without definitive proof.

Their "mission statement" should not have been used as an answer to your question, thats quite poor.

No, you are not being unreasonable, however 108 questions to be specifically investigated will take a lot of time and committment, and then there is the matter of finding 'proof'.
Perhaps you can keep pushing, and write back saying that:
"you thank them for their response and as they didn't answer your questions that, while you appreciate that they are still investigating the matter; you would like to request a timeline for them to deliver answers against."
This locks them into setting a timeline, or making them say that they consider the matter closed.... which you can then use to leverage your complaint back at them or to a higher level, i.e. Ombudsman.

All fun and games, :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clinton1

........................Do the people that you are addressing your complaint to have the ability to test your statement for truth/accuracy?
i.e. When Mr X was naughty, will there be a recording or transcript of events that they can use to apply a 'truth test' to your allegation?......................

---

Yes they do, there is a transcript of the recording, they just don't have the will to admit there are problems and to address them. I think they believe that it's better to just cover up any problems in the hope that they will go away.

Mick

In that case Mick, let them know that you are aware that they can investigate and use the recordings/evidence to make conclusions, and request a timeline for them to respond to.

Generic "Missions statements" used to respond to your questions are not good enough.

Clinton,
done all that, they have investigated, gotten results they don't like and given me the mission statements to placate me. This is after a lot of correspondence, requests for timelines and me replying to their initial mission statements with a "not good enough". They've told me to make an appointment to meet with the investigating officers to clarify any points. (ie we don't want to give you anything in writing).

Mick

Send it to the minister responsible for your emergency services portfolio. CC it to you local state member - visit them if possible to outline your concern. Include on the CC list the head of the organisation your are making claim against so in the slim chance they do read it they can call the minister to cover their assets - if you can get them talking about it your on the right track. Finally include a copy to your regional officer - they will likely get the delegation call to see if they can 'sort out the problem'.

The difficulty is power: you are not paid - therefore of little importance until needed and ethically would never withdraw service to the community, so what's in it for those with power? Has there been a coronial or other inquest into bushfire in QLD or the other states that supports your concerns? Little Johnny launched a COAG bushfire inquiry in 2003 - does it address any of your concerns - does it raise issues still not addressed/implimented locally?
If you can dig up stuff like this it leans towards connivance more than just mis-management and ignorance - and an argument on conivance wil open more doors than one on mis-management (which is what people expect of public servants).

As for influencing power, do you have land holders/primary producers in your area that you provide service - be it permits to burn or planned fuel reductions, etc? talk of withdrawing these services should see just how influential this group can be.


If you want to fire some more ammo at worplace safety dept point out to them that the QLD workplace heath and safety Act 1995 binds all parties including the state - which has precedent to include volunteers as follows:
s4 Act binds all persons
This Act binds all persons, including the State and, so far as the legislative power of the Parliament permits, the Commonwealth and the other States

In less words they have a legislated duty to investigate your concerns in the interest of safety. S11 of the same act encompases volunteers.

Also, be aware if the dept has an annual or three-five year plan that incorporates fixes for issues you are raising - if they do it will be hard for you to make any ground unless the minister can see that their strategic business plan is flawed.