24 July 2007

Walking the plank: Who’d be a public sector communicator?

Several important points of principle are apt to be lost in the fall-out from the fate of Madeleine Setchell or simply not raised, says public service watchdog group Pugnacious. In no particular order those points include:

The so-called “conflict of interest”, as put forward by the SSC does not stack up against the SSC’s own guidelines. The 20 July briefing to the Minister of State Services amounted to a fabricated nonsense. It was an insult to the notion of public service and the status of public servants. The tenor of that briefing was of an “old guard” and is not sustainable for future generations of high-performing public servants.

Where in SSC guidelines does the term “discreet support on politically sensitive matters” appear? See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0707/S00349.htm How does this sit against the SSC’s established position that “a public servant's personal behaviour that does not interfere with the performance of their official duties or reflect on the integrity or standing of the department or the Public Service is of no concern to their employing department”?

What does this say about the pall cast on one group in particular: all those staff who hold positions such as Communications Advisors? Will the Network of Public Sector Communicators speak out on behalf of the vulnerable status of that ever-growing group? Will the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand, which highly commended work done by Setchell for Dairy Insight in 2006, issue a media release protesting the profession’s wider integrity?

The SSC itself acknowledges that Chief Executives and other senior public servants “need to accept the reality of the increased visibility of the State sector and be prepared to become more public figures than their predecessors”. Given the important role of Communications Managers, can it be understood that the less-than-courageous actions of Hugh Logan represent a lack of confidence in all Communications Managers by all Chief Executives?

Should Communications staff in the public service henceforth refuse to draft Ministerial speeches lest they risk loss of impartiality and political neutrality, let alone factual accuracy? Should they also stop promulgating ‘Question and Answer’ material to comply with the SSC edict that “it is inappropriate for public servants to suggest to media or other inquirers that particular types of questions should be asked”? Where is the line they should walk? Or is it a plank?

Who at the SSC will respond to accusations of “double standards and toadyism” made by the New Zealand Herald? Or is this simply an instance of “gagging”, and is it symptomatic of yet another reason that so few public servants have made use of the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act? Madeleine Setchell, who has given faithful service to a number of government organizations (FORST, OSH, MAF) has been a sacrificial lamb on an unaltered landscape of hypocrisy and cant. Perhaps she could next move on to the SSC who are currently advertising for an experienced Advisor or Senior Advisor.

The SSC’s “ideal candidate” will have “public sector experience, strong writing and influencing skills and be an experienced relationship and change manager… In exchange for these well rounded skills, SSC offers the opportunity to operate in a busy and varied role at the centre of government…This is an exciting time to join SSC with many high level and high visibility projects on the go.” Just be careful that you don’t possess a talking pillow, or even a shared bed. Worse still there might be someone underneath it!!

ENDS

© Scoop Media