-
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -
This sounds better...but, in this appointment where has the PSC gone wrong.Originally posted by Willi View Post
The matter of "shutting two members out" has not been proven fact.
...and I am sure the members and the Committee can confer with whomsoever each member and or the Committee so desires. It would be dereliction of duty...gross misconduct...to not investigate and not thoroughly 'know' the persons who they foist on the people of Jamaica!"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
I am suggesting that this PSC has shown me that it needed to be extricated.
To me now it is clear that Vascianni was not the problem, the PSC was.Comment
-
Confer with yuh baby father???
Confer with the outgoing employee and another senior civil servant??
Slapping up one candidate because he testified in favour of a previously victimized staff member?? All this even after the july High Court ruling?
In addition, while shutting out 2 of the five. No Karl, the beast was out of control!!!Comment
-
She should ahve recused hereself!Originally posted by Willi View Post
Nothing wrong here!
Confer with the outgoing employee and another senior civil servant??
No!
Slapping up one candidate because he testified in favour of a previously victimized staff member?? All this even after the july High Court ruling?
GFrom my reading the gentleman resume in his post and was after, as the PSC has the right to do, transferred.
Re: "shutting out"In addition, while shutting out 2 of the five. No Karl, the beast was out of control!!!
Not proven fact!"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
It is proven that only 3 of the five made the decision.
Clear conflict of interest given that the man testified against their unfair action in the recent past.
PSC is not to confer with the civil service in this matter...distance is thus lost.Comment
-
While I give full attention to and support that all five MUST be given the opportunity to part-take in the decision making...and, if any of the five...even one was not accorded that right...then the decision shoudl be set aside and another meeting held...Originally posted by Willi View Post
...that has not been proven.
You are joking!Clear conflict of interest given that the man testified against their unfair action in the recent past.
Right?
Are you saying if the PSC took a position against any of those under 'its charge' if another situation arose where the person who did nto get a favourable rating from the PSC applied for a job the PSC should be disbanded?
...again, you cannot be serious!
I do not know what to say here!
PSC is not to confer with the civil service in this matter...distance is thus lost.
Are you saying the PSC consulted with the Civil Service? That is news to me! I thought the PSC consulted with a member of the civil service based on what the PSC saw as that member's ability to contribute info which could aid it in its deliberation.
...but, it would be appalling if the PSC...any PSC did not get input from persons and bodies within the civil service on qualities, background and positions held, etc.
Where would first line of verification of those vital bits of information necessary to determine suitability to hold the position applied for and or comtemplated being appointed to...arise if not from info within the civil service and from individuals within the civil service. Sure the info would be in many cases aided by supporting documents outside of the civil serves...but....damn?"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."Comment
-
They consulted with hylton AND the Cabinet secretary.Comment
Tweet
Comment