Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One of the benefits of a politically neutral public service is that they faithfully serve the government of the day...
Which, to get really nuts, might include a civil servant playing the devil's advocate or proffering some free and frank advice the Minister of the day doesn't really want to listen to (and is free to ignore anyway). Don't know about you, Rich, but I've often found that's the best advice of all.
-
I contend it would be hard to separate my professionalism from my intimate's influence from the other pillow.
And if you said that to me in a job interview for anything, I'd thank you for your time and promptly shred your cv. And from the other side of the table, I'd strongly urge you to keep that insight to yourself - especially if we were seriously trying to attract a more diverse workforce that single young men who've barely had time for the ink to dry on their
most recent qualification. It's a simple demographic reality that youth and a penis aren't quite the competitive advantage they used to be - and I'd respectfully suggest it's not only crass and patronising, but bad professional judgement, to define any woman's "professionalism" by her husband /partner/CUPcake etc. -
I think “who does this person know?” is not nearly as good a test as: “does this person look as though they will respect their obligation not to disclose information?”
Well, certainly. At the risk of sounding like a total jerk-off, the blog/media scene in this country isn't quite incestuous - but few people in the media stay in the same job for life, or are celibate recluses. (For which the wimmins mags and gossip columns are eternally grateful, I'm sure.) If I was starting a newspaper or magazine, and disqualified everyone who had some kind of relationship with staff on a competitor that constituted a potential conflict of interest it would be pretty hard to find anyone worth the having. :)
But I digress... As Russell pointed out, Setchelll has apparently worked for OSH and the Department of Labour (hardly political dead zones) without incident - or any suggestion that she was leaking to her partner, who was a reporter for the Herald before he jumped the fence to work for Key. Being in a relationship with a journalist isn't an unacceptable conflict of interest; but being involved with the Leader of the Opposition's press secretary is?
Gee, any hack worth his (or her) salt would be insulted! :)
-
Russell:
Fair point, and I certainly won't defend what is very far from Wyatt's finest moment. But I'm confident Clark would (quite justifiably) go nuclear if John Key blithely opined at a press conference her husband should never have been appointed to this post, because of a potential conflict of interest (never mind how it's managed), and the always politically contentious nature of public health policy. I can certainly think of a few Auckland Uni. academics who would have a short, sharp and unprintable response to any slur on their institution's academic integrity and political independence.
-
But I think Joanne Black is a bit over the top in claiming: "It is unnerving to learn that simply on the basis of my husband’s occupation, I might be barred from holding many (or any) of the country’s 190,000 public service jobs."
I agree with you, but it's sure understandable considering the amount of snide (and distasteful) chipping she and Jane Clifton get because of who they happen to be in relationships with - which, naturally, makes them Tory Cylon sleeper agents programmed to destroy The Listener from within. Why do I get left out of all the really good evil plams? :)
-
Thanks, Russell (memo to self: scroll button is your friend), and it is an interesting listen. And I'd just like to issue a clarification - my first comment could be reasonably read as a catty drive-by on Jonathan Boston's integrity. I've been disagreeing with the man for many years, but I've no reason to question his academic and professional ethics, and I apologise unreservedly if any such inference was taken.
But I do stand by the substance of my original comment - academia is full of potential conflicts of interest. I guess the most obvious is that Peter Davis didn't put his (distinguished) academic career on hold when his wife entered Parliament, let alone when she became Health Minister and, nine years later, Prime Minister. The expectation is that Clark and Davis conform to the ethical norms of their respective professions - and does anyone really want to suggest they spend what little private time they have together on professional 'pillow talk' and accidentally on purpose leaking confidential papers?
Ditto for Annette King and Ray Lind. Putting aside the whole Hawkes Bay DHB fiasco, Ray held a number of senior management positions in Wellington City Council while his wife was the MP for Rongotai. On the partisan tip, believe you me nothing would have made me happier than to find evidence that those two weren't keeping a rigid line between their professional and private lives. Didn't happen though.
In the end, I'm sure Victoria University - like the Wellington City Council or the public service - has processes to deal with legitimate concerns over professional misconduct. And the State Services Commission - and the more *cough* paranoid members of the executive branch - are just going to have to get used to the idea that the world no longer looks like an episode of Father Knows Best, if it ever really did. It certainly isn't The Stepford Wives.
-
Why wasn't the whole thing made confidential & avoid the media ruckus?
Not quite sure what you mean here, Michael, because Setchell herself isn't talking - and I think it's reasonable to suspect there's a cheque with a gagging clause attached. But since when was the executive and civil service beyond scrutiny or criticism?
I'd also suggest any halfway competent Press Gallery hack, seeing the senior communications manager for the MoE leave after three days would start thinking "there's a story here..."
Why should DBP be gone, Neil?
To be quite cynical, John, I think DBP is going to be goneburger for the one unforgivable political sin: A lousy rate of return on the expenditure of political capital. And if he's shown over the days and weeks to have been *cough* economical with the veritas (as Churchill put it) then his position is untenable. Esprit de corps is one thing; but Clark's not going to keep someone in the Cabinet who makes her - or the Government - look like dupes.
-
That did occur to me: those are two very senior comms jobs likely to be in political conflict (Boston quite frankly declared that it would have been inappropriate in his view).
Hum... I must catch that when it goes live on the RNZ website, but on the basis of your precis, I think Professor Boston has somewhat missed the point - and I'd like to think Victoria University would just hang up on any staffer from the Education Minister's office who wanted to engage in a little 'consultation' on new appointments to the School of Government, or the Institute of Policy Studies where he's the deputy director. (And looking at its website, I'd suggest the IPS's ongoing research program on things like climate change policy could be highly politically contentious.)
-
Am I the only person mildly surprised to find he's tempted to lie about his age on an anonymous survery? There goes the delusion that vanity isn't one of my character flaws...
-
Gee, I thought Susan was having a joke at the expense of the stereotypical misandrist ol' dyke. (Perhaps it's just me, but most of the lesbians I know only have a problem with men if they don't drink, don't smoke, and fail to appreciate having their internal organs liquefied by Dusty Springfield cranked up to 11.) Turns out she was 'misquoted'...
Bugger.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 … 1235 Older→ First