BS 3

 What is the problem with Beau Sejour and why is it taking so long to sort out?
 
I believe there are a number of fundamental issues involved here starting with an understanding of what the centre is for.
 
Is it a profit making entity or is it a community asset?
 
Even if it is the latter, why can’t it generate a small profit? After all, we have several successful private gym and leisure facilities running on the Island so it must be possible to make money in this sector.
 
Another hint of potential profitability is the fact that at least three firms are interested in running Beau Sejour and so must believe that they can make a good profit for themselves out of the deal. If they can do it, why can’t it’s present owners?
 
I think it maybe a mindset problem. A mindset which thinks the centre is a service provider rather than a business and doesn’t need to make money; a mindset which needs changing if the centre is to remain in the public sector.
 
Then there is the possible mindset of the States themselves which seem to be heading towards privatisation of whatever they can get away with. Maybe this has something to do with Tribal Helm, the company brought in a while back to advise the States on how to run things.
 
Tribal Helm has since been taken over by the Capita Group which co-incidentally happens to make a substantial part of it’s own healthy profits from providing a wide range of services to the public sector. When you own a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
 
If the Island’s current set up isn’t fit for the purpose of running a business such as Beau Sejour then perhaps the set up needs changing rather than privatising which will only see any profits going into private pockets rather than back into the community coffers.
 
Another mindset seems to be showing itself over the creche closure in that the redundant staff are being helped to relocate within C&L or elsewhere in the States sector. An excellent idea if there are unfilled vacancies where these skills are needed but do such jobs exist or is it showing that the States rarely if ever reduce their numbers?
 
If Beau Sejour is overstaffed then perhaps we need to consider redundancies; a concept the private sector manages to achieve with ease.
 
A job in the public sector should not be for life; another idea which perhaps has yet to filter through from the private sector.
 
I can see why redundancies are so hard to contemplate. It’s the thin end of the wedge and only a short step to then consider the A word.
 
Accountability.
 
Something which thrives in the private sector. Do a good job and get rewarded. Do a bad job and get fired. Do a job which isn’t needed any more then get made redundant.
 
Why is it so hard to bring these practises to bear in the public sector?
 
Is it beyond the wit of those people who pull down the larger salaries to do just that and manage their relevant sectors?
 
Here’s a plan to sort out Beau Sejour.
 
Close it.
 
Close it and reopen it as a stand alone States assisted business which is precisely what it is at present.
 
Mandate it’s managers to run it for profit and allow them free rein to do just that and within two years. Hire and fire as necessary to bring this business back from the grave it seems to be in.
 
I say seems to be because on the face of it, Beau Sejour is a thriving and successful enterprise with over 600,000 footfalls through its doors a year. That means that on average 11,500 people go through those doors each week and that’s a lot of people.
 
Now either the costs of using the centre are too low or the overheads too high. Even I can work that out.
 
What I can’t understand is why the centre’s managers aren’t allowed to get on with their job and do whatever is necessary to return a small profit.
 
What is holding them back?
 
That is the question which needs to be asked and which needs answering in the public domain; not behind some closed door in a private meeting with stakeholders. The taxpayer is a stakeholder here and should be made aware of the issues.
 
Perhaps it’s time that our elected representatives did get involved with operational issues rather than being fobbed off with the “outside of your remit” excuse.
 
Not at the day to day nuts and bolts level but a good understanding of the effectiveness of managerial control might not be a bad thing especially if tied to some real power over hiring and firing of those who don’t seem to be able to control their departments.
 
Radical ideas perhaps but not as radical as throwing away a profitable business just because we can’t allow someone to run it effectively.