Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
A selection panel for a highly paid Victorian government job altered a report to drop the scores on two applicants and elevate one who had not been formally interviewed, with state Ombudsman Deborah Glass lashing sloppy hiring practices across departments.<\/p>\n
Although her latest major report did not find evidence the public service had been stacked with partisan operatives, Glass did uncover evidence of poor practices that explained why so many interviewees felt senior recruitment had become politicised.<\/p>\n
The report said ministerial staff were often appointed without the job being advertised. This was justified by departments that said they needed someone who understood how governments worked and could \u201cget things done\u201d.<\/p>\n
Out of 16 appointments reviewed by the ombudsman, 11 were direct appointments. Only two of nine eligible positions were advised on the government\u2019s jobs and skills exchange.<\/p>\n
\u201cCandidates were often hand-picked without an open and advertised process and slotted into new roles \u2013 sometimes without position descriptions, defined duties or a clearly documented business need,\u201d the report said.<\/p>\n
The ombudsman also raised concerns about jobs in which recruitment was rushed and shoddy, the selection process was not transparent and there was little evidence left behind that kept up with the public services standards for record keeping.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Luis Enrique Ascui<\/cite><\/p>\n In one case study, a staff member on a government selection panel admitted to \u201csloppy\u201d practices after the panel edited its report to recommend a candidate, named Executive B, who had never been interviewed or lodged a formal application. Their identity was left anonymous to protect their reputation.<\/p>\n Another applicant, Executive C, had been the panel\u2019s preferred candidate, but it decided not to offer them the job. Internal correspondence from a panel member said: \u201cthat\u2019s a shame about [Executive C]; I presume that is from ministerial feedback\u201d.<\/p>\n Staff speaking to the ombudsman said they could not recall which minister this person had fallen out of favour with but said there was a \u201cview\u201d about their standing in the minister\u2019s office.<\/p>\n Shortly after this decision was made, Executive B contacted the agency about the job and spoke to staff various times on the phone, providing details about their experience.<\/p>\n The panel\u2019s selection report was later edited to add Executive B to the list of applicants, provide them with the highest score out of all candidates and to lower the score of two other competitors.<\/p>\n A panel member admitted in interviews that this document was inaccurate and was likely to mislead an independent reviewer. Executive B was hired, but the ombudsman did not find that they knew about the unusual way the process was conducted or make any findings of misconduct.<\/p>\n \u201cPerception matters. Not only must merit selection be done, it must be seen to be done,\u201d Glass said on Wednesday.<\/p>\n \u201dDisregarding this principle makes it less likely that the public sector will attract and retain capable leaders. The quality and candour of advice upon which important decisions are made will suffer. Confidence in the strict neutrality of public service will be shaken.\u201c<\/p>\n In another case study, a former ministerial staffer named Executive E was interviewed for a job, but the meeting was described as a \u201ctrain wreck\u201d and they were assessed as \u201cnot suitable\u201d. They later told the ombudsman they\u2019d stopped to help a woman needing an ambulance on the way there.<\/p>\n After the interview, the department secretary spoke to Executive E, and they were offered a contract for a different senior position.<\/p>\n When questioned by investigators, the secretary said they approved the creation of the new role and the hiring of the executive because they believed the person had already cleared the selection process from the initial job interview. They were surprised when shown a copy of the report that said the person was not suitable.<\/p>\n The ombudsman said the evidence showed the executive had been capable in the role and had respected the public service\u2019s independence. But she said the way the hiring process was conducted had risked damaging their reputation and \u201ccreated the understandable perceptions of politicisation\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cWe found neither appointee was hired due to partisan political considerations. Yet both case studies demonstrate the level of suspicion that can arise when open and transparent selection processes are not strictly followed, to the detriment of the public sector and those appointed,\u201d the report said.<\/p>\n Glass also examined dozens of senior appointments at the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions after the 2018 state election.<\/p>\n Submissions made to the investigation questioned why so many roles were replaced and so quickly, and complained of a centralised takeover after multiple Department of Premier and Cabinet employees filled these jobs.<\/p>\n The ombudsman did not find evidence of a takeover or political recruitment, but did find there were issues in recruitment that fuelled a perception the process was politicised.<\/p>\n Glass also said poor record keeping had affected many of the investigations she had launched as part of the larger politicisation probe.<\/p>\n Get the day\u2019s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. <\/i><\/b>Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\nMost Viewed in Politics<\/h2>\n
From our partners<\/h3>\n