Accountability

Some time ago the States got conned out of a rather large sum of money; you may have heard a little something about it at the time before the usual smoke and mirrors were deployed in an effort to obscure the dreaded "A" word.

Now that smoke has been blown away somewhat by a rather damning report which tells us that a lot of work still needs to be done to tighten up anti fraud and risk management procedures.

What?

A lot of work still needs to be done?

Let’s step back a bit here.

It is the job of senior management to set the parameters and control systems for their department or maybe for several in the case of something so fundamental as anti fraud procedures.

On this basis and regarding the particular fraud in question, either someone more junior failed to follow the set procedures or the control systems were inadequate.

This report suggests the latter.

So you may be forgiven for assuming that someone very senior in the organisation failed to do their job.

Not, oops, I've made a mistake, but an apparent systemic failure to ensure that basic and adequate control systems were in place.

Not only that, but following a catastrophic failure which resulted in a substantial loss, the remedial measures then put in place (aka shutting the stable door) have yet to be proved fully effective to the degree that “more work is needed”.

I agree.

The work needed is that some people need to be sacked.

Someone got paid a lot of money because they were in a position of responsibility. Part of that responsibility should have been to ensure that adequate control systems were in place or to initiate such systems to prevent fraud of any type or nature.

If this wasn't in their remit, then perhaps their boss needs sacking for an apparent failure to not only bolt the stable door but for the more serious failing of not building a door in the first place.

You cannot use the excuse that nobody could foresee such a thing happening. It is basic business sense to guard against fraud in its many facets. It’s called risk management and it’s not a new concept just basic business sense.

Something which apparently was not only missing but which is still not yet up to speed these many months later.

Someone needs sacking.

Not for losing two point whatever million pounds but for the failure to put proper safeguards in place.

An apparent repeated failure to put proper and adequate safeguards in place.

Mistakes happen but this was not a mistake.

This suggests a failure of duty.

It is all too easy to fall into a blame culture mindset especially when the fires are stoked by the media but in this case there does need to be accountability.

Otherwise, what are we paying the big bucks for?

People are getting paid a lot of money to take responsibility.

Well, now it’s time for those same people to be held to account.

Not the little people responsible for following the rules, but the big people who were supposed to set the rules and who seem to have failed to do so.

But at the moment nobody seems willing to clean the stable or at least be seen to be doing so.

Perhaps some senior Ministers would care to nail their colours to the mast or maybe someone high up in the Civil Service if others don't want to earn their keep.

The people of Guernsey, who are the ones paying for all of this, need to know that someone somewhere is earning those big bucks and ensuring adequate accountability is being enforced at all levels.

Not a slap on the wrist or even a written reprimand.

According to this recent report there has been a fundamental failure which has still to be fully corrected.

If that isn't a sackable offence, what is?

Correction

I wrote the above before reading the full report to which I referred and it appears that I am wrong.

Nobody needs to be sacked because nobody was actually responsible.

For over a decade the States have been commissioning and receiving reports about it’s risk management structure and each report has been, shall we say, less than complimentary.

One report placed the States of Guernsey within the bottom 10% of similar UK organisations with regard to risk management.

Each report must have spawned some remedial action at the time but each subsequent report kept coming to the same conclusion.

Not good enough.

Not good enough because nobody was willing or able to take hold of the reins and drive through what was necessary.

Nobody had the responsibility.

Even as of the date of this most recent report there are many inadequacies across the board, some without any remedial action even on the horizon.

A lot of work has been done since the fraud which kick started this latest report but the end result is still a system which is well below that expected of an organisation the size and complexity of the States of Guernsey.

But nobody is responsible.

Still.

Will this report end up on the shelf with the many others produced over the last decade only to be referred to by the next report commissioned following the next failure?

This report needs a hero.

Somebody to take control.

Somebody who has the power to push through the many recommendations of this report before the next catastrophe.

Any takers?