Timing of decision by HSE board to terminate process at late stage deemed ‘far from ideal’
AN AUDIT has criticised how the process for appointing a proposed new national director of operations in the HSE was suddenly ended last year.
The audit carried out by the body responsible for regulating recruitment across much of the public service states that the decision by the board of the HSE to make no appointment to the post had been made only after the recruitment and selection processes had been completed. One candidate had been identified for the post at that stage.
The Commission for Public Service Appointments audit also points to the level of resources which had already been committed to the appointment before the decision to terminate the process was made by the HSE board.
The audit, which has been published on the commission’s website, said: “A number of reasons for the decision were documented including financial pressures and succession planning implications.
“While the decision to appoint is ultimately a matter for the HSE, the timing of the termination of this process was far from ideal given the time and resources committed to the appointments process and the considerable efforts of the candidates who took part in the recruitment campaign,” the audit stated.
The audit found that while there was a handwritten note on the recruitment file indicating that the board of the HSE had decided not to proceed with the appointment of three national directors, there was no formal record of the decision provided to the Public Appointment Service.
The Irish Timesreported last year that the appointment of a proposed new national director of operations in the HSE was one of a number of key posts over which strong disagreements emerged between the board of the organisation and its chief executive, Prof Brendan Drumm.
The issue effectively centred around who would have the final say in the appointment process and whether the board could play a role in this.
Official documents obtained last year under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that the HSE board sought to have an input into the process.
However, Prof Drumm effectively argued that there was no provision for a process that was already under way – and which was being organised through the Public Appointments Service – to be adjusted.
The documents show that the board, which completely rejected the assertion of interference, withdrew Prof Drumm’s delegated authority to make the appointments and said that these would have to be subject to its approval.The board ultimately decided not to fill the three positions.
The documents show that on March 2nd, last year, Prof Drumm wrote to HSE chairman Liam Downey saying that it was not possible to adjust the process and/or the governance procedure in relation to the selection and appointment of the national directors.
“I believe it would be inappropriate for me to alter it in any way. To do so would harm the organisation’s reputation and undermine the trust future applicants for senior posts would have in our recruitment processes. Interfering with the process would raise questions as to my integrity. It would compromise the current process,” he said.
On March 4th, Mr Downey replied that the board of the HSE had adopted a policy with immediate effect that the appointment of the national directors was subject to its approval.
In another letter that day, Mr Downey said the fact that the board had delegated some of its duties to the chief executive did not “diminish the authority and responsibility of the board for maintaining engagement and oversight in the conduct of the affairs of the HSE . . . “
Mr Downey wrote that it was completely unacceptable “to suggest that the board’s accountability and governance in this matter would harm the organisation’s reputation – in fact, the contrary is the case. It is also entirely inappropriate to suggest that this represents interference in the process.”
Prof Drumm replied, saying it had been indicated that his approach was being portrayed as him not co-operating with the board. “I believe that my position has been inaccurately represented,” he said.
On March 11th, Mr Downey said that the interest of the board’s Remuneration and Organisation Committee in the filling of the posts was to ensure that the board’s views, notably in relation to long-term strategic requirements/considerations for all three appointments and succession planning, were taken fully into account. “This is particularly relevant as these appointments are for a five-year period and your tenure as CEO expires next year,” he told Prof Drumm.
Mr Downey also said that, in relation to the suggestion by the chief executive that his position had been misrepresented, “the making of unsubstantiated allegations in this way is inappropriate and disappointing”.
