Decentralisation

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

I had thought that decentralisation was a move away from Dublin thing.

this is a common problem in ireland it seems, we call things by completely inappropriate names

In just about any academic theory, decentralisation means delegating out power from the centre (e.g. from central government to local government). It has nothing to do with moving people around.

What we have is relocation of staff nothing more (the OECD report called it administrative relocation or something like that)

the sheer scale and design of this plan was always going to lead to major problems, especially as there was never any proper consultation or planning. Years on and its a shambles and is still affecting the structure and operation of Departments

It should be scrapped at this point, why wait and leave the uncertainty?

The_Conductor

Riskymove wrote: »

It should be scrapped at this point, why wait and leave the uncertainty?

What about all the buildings that have been contracted out- the buildings in Dublin that were sold, the vacant properties around Dublin- and around the country?

While there aren't all that many civil servants compared to our population size (around 36,500), there is as a result of government policy- accommodation for over 50,000 civil servants. How do we divest ourselves of this excess building space and capacity- in the most cost effective manner? Politically its going to be interesting telling a community that their vacant government building is never going to be used- yet this is what needs to be done.........

Riskymove

smccarrick wrote: »

What about all the buildings that have been contracted out- the buildings in Dublin that were sold, the vacant properties around Dublin- and around the country?

obviously in cases where buildings are built/bought and people are in place, we might as well finish that move

there are still many moves planned that we all know wont happen or wont happen for a long time yet Departments have to operate on the basis that they are (people have to sign up to move to work there etc) which is pointless.

Moves still in the future should be cancelled and we can return to phased relocation like we had before as appropriate

The_Conductor

Riskymove wrote: »

obviously in cases where buildings are built/bought and people are in place, we might as well finish that move

In most cases- very few people were recruited for decentralised jobs- the majority were relocations from one already decentralised location to another. It has meant there are some areas with massive problems- because so many people wanted to move elsewhere (Social Welfare being the obvious case in point).

Riskymove wrote: »

there are still many moves planned that we all know wont happen or wont happen for a long time yet Departments have to operate on the basis that they are (people have to sign up to move to work there etc) which is pointless.

There were hundreds of millions spent on property that will never be of any economic use. I suppose at least we now have an asset disposal agency- NAMA. Whats a couple of hundred million more- when they've got 90 billion on their books?

Riskymove wrote: »

Moves still in the future should be cancelled and we can return to phased relocation like we had before as appropriate

Phased relocation?
Ireland had a series of decentralisation programmes- going all the way back to the 1960s. There was only ever a small proportion of the civil service actually based in Dublin- this is something the media have consistently failed to acknowledge. The reason so many of the successful decentralisations were simply people moving from one already decentralised location to another- is that the civil service was already pretty well decentralised to begin with........

What do you mean by 'phased relocation'? Allowing civilservants move elsewhere in other regional locations- from posts that are already decentralised? At least calling it a 'Phased Relocation' would be honest- you can't decentralise something thats already decentralised after all........

NewDubliner

Riskymove wrote: »

obviously in cases where buildings are built/bought and people are in place, we might as well finish that move

Even where the departments/agencies in question might be abolished by Bord Snip? You want to move people there, then close the office and move/redeploy them again?

You ignore the fact that the cost of not moving might be less than the cost of the inefficiencies caused by the move and the inflexibility it will cause to further reform of staffing.

Riskymove

NewDubliner wrote: »

Even where the departments/agencies in question might be abolished by Bord Snip? You want to move people there, then close the office and move/redeploy them again?

of course not...sorry if i did not consider every possibility before making a general comment!

no I am talking about Departments primarily as the vast majority of agencies were not going due to ongoing issues

I am also talking about situations where people have come to Dublin in preparation to go to a regional location and the building is in place

I am very familiar with an organisation which now has about 100 people in a location as advanced staff, another 150 in dublin (at least half who have come to dublin and want to go) ready to move and the new building is almost complete.

In that case finish the move.

that same org is also due to move to other locations but nowhere near as advanced plans so cancel them

Riskymove

smccarrick wrote: »

Phased relocation?
Ireland had a series of decentralisation programmes- going all the way back to the 1960s. There was only ever a small proportion of the civil service actually based in Dublin- this is something the media have consistently failed to acknowledge. The reason so many of the successful decentralisations were simply people moving from one already decentralised location to another- is that the civil service was already pretty well decentralised to begin with........

What do you mean by 'phased relocation'? Allowing civilservants move elsewhere in other regional locations- from posts that are already decentralised? At least calling it a 'Phased Relocation' would be honest- you can't decentralise something thats already decentralised after all........

yes i mean have "decentralisation" as it used to be on an appropriate scale from time to time but on some better grounds not just where a Minister's constituency is.

depending on the numbers when this plan ends, it may never happen again.

NewDubliner

Riskymove wrote: »

I am very familiar with an organisation which now has about 100 people in a location as advanced staff, another 150 in dublin (at least half who have come to dublin and want to go) ready to move and the new building is almost complete.

What happens if the department is abolished or part of a function is transferred to another department? Centralised staffing resources are much more flexible.

The project was intended as a subsidy for non-economically-viable towns in consituencies loyal to FF. We can't afford that kind of thing any more.

Riskymove

NewDubliner wrote: »

What happens if the department is abolished or part of a function is transferred to another department? Centralised staffing resources are much more flexible.

The project was intended as a subsidy for non-economically-viable towns in consituencies loyal to FF. We can't afford that kind of thing any more.

we are all aware of the issues which have been there from the start but people's lives have been messed around enough. In this case the building has been built and there are 150 people who want to move to it, many of whom have been commuting to Dublin from the regions for a few years now while family are elsewhere waiting. Those sort of situations should be completed.

NewDubliner

Riskymove wrote: »

we are all aware of the issues which have been there from the start but people's lives have been messed around enough. In this case the building has been built and there are 150 people who want to move to it, many of whom have been commuting to Dublin from the regions for a few years now while family are elsewhere waiting. Those sort of situations should be completed.

There will be many hard luck cases as cuts are made in uneconomic activities...sorry.

NewDubliner

Lots of unpopular truths spoken today at today's economic think-in, including this:

Meanwhile ESRI economist John Fitzgerald strongly criticised the Government’s decentralisation programme as a “disaster”.

He said it was causing chaos in the public sector. “People who know about it cannot speak about it because they are public servants,” he said. “They tried this in Burma and sent all the civil servants out into the jungle. And look at Burma. It cannot work where people are split up and sent around the country.”

He said one British observer he spoke to over the summer had said overseas development aid had been “messed up” by transferring staff to Limerick.

Mr Fitzgerald said staff dealing with climate change policy in the Department of Environment had “jumped ship” rather than be transferred to Wexford and replacement staff in this area were now retiring early.

Will Cowen reduce staff from among those he moved into his own constituency?

mike kelly

Better still, send Cowen and his Ministers into the jungle.

cyclopath2001

From the 'Indo', July 21:

A LEADING academic has denounced decentralisation as a failed strategy which has undermined the institutional fabric of the state and become a charter for mileage claims, writes Anita Guidera.

Professor Brigid Laffin, principal of the college of humanities at UCD, told the MacGill Summer School in Glenties, Co Donegal, yesterday that failures of accountability went beyond unethical behaviour to the performance of public institutions and those holding positions of responsibility.

Citing the example of the 2003 decentralisation project, she said there was not a single developed country in the world that would have treated its public institutions the way they were treated in the decentralisation process.

When the election comes, will FF be telling Dubliners that one of its key policies is to take jobs away from Dublin and to increase the cost of public administration and make it less efficient? (And to tax Dubliners' houses to pay for it....)