The recent recruitment of a Registrar of Lands was “fundamentally robust, well-documented” and in compliance with requirements of the Public Sector Management Law (PSML) says a report by human resources (HR) auditors.

Following concerns over the appointment that were raised in Finance Committee in mid-October 2013, the Deputy Governor as head of the Civil Service  commissioned the Government’s HR audit team to assess the integrity of the process.

As part of their investigation auditors undertook discussions with the Chief Officer for the agency, other members of the interview panel, the head of department, existing staff, and the successful candidate. They also reviewed the documentation generated by the process.

The resulting report concludes that no attempt was made to ensure the success of any particular individual. It also notes that previously evaluated job descriptions (as far back as 2002) had stated a preference for a law degree, and also required membership in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).

The Deputy Governor is quoted as saying that, “given the proven track record of promoting and employing Caymanians, I am pleased but not surprised by the outcome of the Audit Report.

I accept that the filling of this Post, which was previously held by a Caymanian, with a non-Caymanian signals that we must do a better job with Succession Planning.  To this end, in August 2013 I instructed Chief Officers to ensure that there was a Succession Plan in place for all key posts in the Civil Service.

I also accept that the move away from promoting Civil Servants based on tenure alone and focusing on raising the performance of the Civil Service by holding people accountable for their performance, by providing existing Civil Servants with opportunities to up-skill themselves and by promoting and recruiting highly qualified people in the Civil Service will cause some discontent amongst the Civil Service. However, I remain committed to developing a world class Civil Service that supports the Elected Government and provides excellent service to the people of the Cayman Islands.”

 

Reports follow:

 

HR Audit Review of “Registrar of Lands Recruitment”

Repot date: October 2013

Report status: FINAL

Distribution: Mr Franz Manderson, Deputy Governor

 

Introduction

During Finance Committee on October 17th 2013, Members raised concerns over the integrity of an anticipated appointment to the role of “Registrar of Lands” in the Lands & Survey Department, Ministry of Planning, Lands, Agriculture, Housing & Infrastructure.

This report presents the independent and objective opinion of the HR Audit service who were subsequently commissioned by the Deputy Governor to review the integrity of this recruitment process.

 

Methodology

The review sought to assess the overall integrity of the recruitment process, including consideration of the strength of evidence in existence to support or refute the concern that:

a.    The recruitment campaign was engineered to ensure the success of a particular individual who was known personally to one of the Interview Panel members.

b.   A new requirement for a law degree or Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) membership prevented experienced Caymanians from having the opportunity to contend for the position.

 

The full HR Audit Services team (Manager, Mr. Andy Bonner and Auditors Mrs. Cherry Luzon and Mrs. Karen

Christian) were involved in conducting the review and undertook the following actions:

 Discussion with Ministry PLAH&I Chief Officer and Appointing Officer, Mr. Alan Jones.

 Discussion with Director of Lands & Survey, Mr. Rupert Vasquez.

 Discussion with Interview Panel Members (Mr. Alan Jones, Mr. Rupert Vasquez and Acting Chief

Officer of the Portfolio of the Civil Service, Mr. Ian Fenton).

 Discussion with members of staff from the Lands & Survey Department.

 Discussion with successful candidate.

 Review of documented process in accordance with standard audit programme for recruitment.

 

Access to information

With the exception of the inability to obtain the Finance Committee transcript which was incomplete at the time of the audit, no significant limitations were encountered relating to access to the people or information deemed necessary for conducting this review.

Obtaining the transcript would have given us access to the precise wording of the concerns raised in the

House and the responses provided on the day by the Officers involved and in attendance.

 

Audit Opinion

Having gathered and reviewed what we considered to be the available and necessary evidence, our independent audit opinion is that:

The evidence suggests that the 2013 recruitment process for the Registrar of Lands was fundamentally robust, well documented and in general compliance with the recruitment requirements of the Public Service Management Law. Some areas are identified where the process could have been stronger but these are not considered to be of a magnitude to invalidate the outcome.

 

 We do not believe that the recruitment campaign for the Registrar of Lands was engineered to ensure the success of any particular individual, nor did we find any substance behind the suggestion that the successful applicant was known to a member of the Interview Panel to any  extent  beyond  isolated  instances  of  professional  networking  at  regional  conferences (which was verbally disclosed to the other members of the Interview Panel prior to the selection process).

 

We believe that the inclusion of a requirement for a degree level law qualification or RICS membership did deter at least one experienced Caymanian from applying for the position, but we also believe that such a requirement is appropriate for this position. We also note that the prior evaluated job description (2003) already expressed a ‘preference’ for candidates to have a degree level law qualification and also that when the duties of the Registrar were to be undertaken by the Deputy Director (job description evaluated 2011) there was an even higher requirement with the ideal candidate expected to be a member of the RICS.

Our observations on the strengths of the general recruitment process included;

 

 Comprehensive and clear documentation throughout each stage of the recruitment process.

 Interview Panel members unanimous in their decision and clear on their roles and responsibilities.

 Advertised in accordance with the Public Service Management Law, yielding 27 applications.

 Applicants shortlisted against the criteria in the job description with documented commentary on why and why not people were selected for interview.

 The Interview Panel included a senior manager from the Portfolio of the Civil Service who brought both recruitment experience and independence from the Lands & Survey Department and Ministry.

 A scoring methodology developed to provide consistency and objectivity in the assessment of the interviewed candidates, and one which resulted in the preferred candidate being a clear decision

after scoring significantly higher than the other applicants.

 A comprehensive overall report from the Interview Panel signed by all of its members.

 

“What could have been done better?” and Recommendations

Aside from the strengths, there were also some areas identified where we believe the process could have been stronger. Whilst we highlight them here and we would suggest they are drawn to the attention of the Chief Officer, PLAH&I and the Director of Lands & Survey for consideration and action in the interests of striving for excellence in recruitment practices, we reiterate that we do not consider these to be significant enough to invalidate the outcome of the recruitment process in question.

 

1.   The changes to the Registrar of Lands job description may affect the grading of the job. It should have  been  submitted  to  the  Portfolio  of  the  Civil  Service  for  formal  re-evaluation  prior  to advertising.

Recommendation: Submit the revised job description for re-evaluation to confirm the pay grade.

2.   Although 5 applicants were shortlisted, only 2 really met the criteria for the post with the other 3 being invited with a view to assess their suitability for a possible deputy role. Shortlisting 2 suitable candidates did meet the requirements of the PSML, but when 1 withdrew her application just before the interview date, only 1 potentially viable candidate remained. At this stage it would have been prudent to strengthen the line-up of interviewees by embarking on a further round of advertising and / or considering any ‘border-line’ applicants who marginally missed being shortlisted (in our opinion a further 3 applicants, none of whom incidentally were Caymanians, could have been taken for interview from amongst the applicants).

Whilst news of the vacancy was arguably communicated world-wide by virtue of its inclusion on the Government and Lands & Survey Internet sites, targeted advertising could have been extended beyond Jamaica to ensure a stronger field of applicants, especially given the key role and the known absence of any Caymanians on the advanced stages of succession planning for the role.

Recommendation: Whenever it is practical to do so, extend the literal requirement of the PSML to shortlist at least 2 suitable candidates to ensure that at least 2 suitable candidates are actually interviewed.

3.   The Interview Panel is expected to have a detailed understanding of the job being recruited to, and the Recruitment Panel could have been strengthened with the inclusion of the prior Registrar of Lands who remains in current employment at the Lands & Survey Department. Although a senior member of the Portfolio of the Civil Service was included on the Panel to provide an extra degree of strength and independence, he lacked the detailed knowledge of the job being recruited to and would therefore have been better as a 4th optional member of the Panel and not the 3rd mandatory member.

Recommendation: Ensure that the composition of the Interview Panel is as strong as possible given the requirements of the PSML.

4.   No documented references were obtained to support the successful applicant (Although a PSML

requirement, this is a common audit finding and not unique to this case).

 

Recommendation: References should be sought to support the preferred candidate unless (s)he is well known to the Interview Panel.

5.   There was an extended delay in informing the 1 internal Caymanian applicant that they had not been shortlisted. Other unsuccessful applicants were informed on 9th  May, but the internal Caymanian applicant did not hear that outcome until late July after the interviews had taken place.

Recommendation: Unsuccessful applicants should be informed as soon as practically possible after that outcome is known.

6.   The job advertisement stated that the contract is ‘renewable pending satisfactory performance review’ which creates an impression that renewal is guaranteed with satisfactory job performance. Whilst the risk of this misunderstanding is mitigated by the actual Employment Agreement which contains the standard ‘no presumption of further fixed-term employment’ clause, problems could still arise.

Recommendation: Ensure that the selected candidate is clear on the possibility of further fixed-term employment and refrain from using the ‘renewable pending satisfactory performance’ phrase in future advertisements.

Andy Bonner

HR Audit Services Manager, Office of the Deputy Governor.

 

HR Audit Review of “Registrar of Lands Recruitment”

UPDATE NOTE incorporating MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

 

Report Date:  December 24th 2013

Report Status:            FINAL

Distribution:  Mr. Franz Manderson, Deputy Governor

Mr. Alan Jones, Chief Officer

Mr. Rupert Vasquez, Director of Lands & Survey

 

Introduction

On October 30th  the HR Audit service issued a report presenting an independent and objective opinion on the overall integrity of the 2013 recruitment process for the ‘Registrar of Lands’ position within the Lands & Survey Department, Ministry of PLAH&I.

This note, to be read in the context of the original report, provides an update subsequent to the content of that report having been shared with Mr. Alan Jones, Chief Officer PLAH&I and Mr. Rupert Vasquez, the Director of Lands & Survey.

Unchanged Audit Opinion

This update has no impact on our overall opinion which concluded, in summary form, that the recruitment process was fundamentally robust, well documented and in general compliance with the recruitment requirements of the Public Service Management Law.

Operational Recommendations: Update and Management Responses

The original report included 6 operational recommendations made in the interests of achieving excellence in recruitment practices by going beyond what had already been found to be strong recruitment practices.

Further to the report being shared with the Chief Officer and Director of Lands & Survey and our subsequent discussions with them, we are withdrawing 1 recommendation which we now believe was not necessary, and clarifying our reasoning behind another one.

All of the original recommendations are repeated below together with the management comments and our own additional update notes where appropriate.

Recommendation 1: Submit the revised job description for re-evaluation to confirm the pay grade.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“I agree with the recommendation. This was due to an administrative oversight by L&S. It should have been an automatic and standard requirement as part of the recruitment checklist. Steps have been taken to now make it so. The Job Description has now been sent up to PoCS for job evaluation, albeit after the fact.”

Recommendation 2 WITHDRAWN: Whenever it is practical to do so, extend the literal requirement of the PSML to shortlist at least 2 suitable candidates to ensure that at least 2 suitable candidates are actually interviewed.

Audit  Note:  This  recommendation  arose  from  an  understanding  that  3  of  the  5  shortlisted candidates were not being considered for the Registrar of Lands position because of annotation on the shortlisting documentation saying they were “shortlisted as a candidate that may be considered for the Deputy Registrar’s post”. When 1 of the 2 candidates who didn’t have this annotation withdrew their application at a late stage, it appeared that only 1 viable candidate was interviewed.

Having discussed this further with the Chief Officer and Director of Lands & Survey, we now believe that the annotation was misleading and although the 3 were seen as weaker candidates based on their applications alone, it was always the intention that they could have been successful had they performed well at interview.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“Although this recommendation is being withdrawn, for the sake of clarity, I would also add that it could have been perceived as being unfair to the other candidates to cancel the interviews at that time. The said candidate withdrew at the 11th hour, being the day before. All candidates were advised of the interview date and had already gone to various lengths to make themselves available. It didn’t seem justified to cancel the entire interview on the withdrawal of a single candidate. Furthermore, some “borderline” candidates were already part of the shortlist and could potentially have been the successful candidate if they were to have proven themselves as such to the Panel. If, on the other hand, there was not a successful candidate, then the full advertising and recruitment process would have begun anew. Although it may be argued otherwise, it made sense to go ahead with the interview process at that late stage and then, depending on the outcome, begin the recruitment process again if necessary.”

Recommendation 3: Ensure that the composition of the Interview Panel is as strong as possible given the requirements of the PSML.

Audit Note: For the avoidance of doubt, we did not intend for the original report to give any impression  that  the  Interview  Panel  did  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Public  Service Management Law. The Panel composition was in full compliance with the Law and this recommendation was only intended to highlight that what was already a strong Panel, could have been even stronger. Our suggestion that the prior Registrar of Lands could have been included on the Panel was only meant to be an example of how the technical expertise and knowledge relevant to the post being recruited to could have been strengthened further. We did not mean to go as far as implying that she should have been included in preference to any other more suitable person.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“I feel that the Panel was well balanced in that both the CO (a former Director of lands & Survey) and I, as Registrar and HOD, brought strong technical background and intimate knowledge of the post  to  the  table.  The  other  member  of  the  panel,  the  DCO  PoCS,  brought  a great  depth  of experience  that  is  reflected  in the  draft  report’s  “Observations”  in  that “The  Interview  Panel included a senior manager from the Portfolio of the Civil Service who brought both recruitment experience and independence from the Lands & Survey Department and Ministry.” I believe that the DCO also had a clear understanding of the requirements of the post. As such, it is my view that the Panel not only satisfied the PSML, but perhaps may have been stronger than other panels recruiting for similar level posts.”

Recommendation 4: References should be sought to support the preferred candidate unless (s)he is well known to the Interview Panel.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“Again I agree with the recommendation. It was an administrative oversight by L&S. It should have been an automatic and standard requirement as part of the recruitment checklist. Steps have been taken to now make it so and to guard against this happening again in future recruitment exercises.”

Recommendation 5: Unsuccessful applicants should be informed as soon as practically possible after that outcome is known.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“Agreed. This was due entirely to me wanting to speak with the individual concerned personally. I did not just want to advise the reason for her not being interviewed. I felt that as Director I needed to encourage her to qualify herself for the post. Simply advising her by letter alone I felt was not enough. This led to me finding the time to speak to her, which became rather extended due to other operational duties. Our meeting also was delayed due to her going on leave during this time. If not for the wish to meet with her, as I believe to be the proper way, she would have been informed at the same time as the other candidates not shortlisted. I will ensure that any such delay is avoided in future.”

Recommendation 6: Ensure that the selected candidate is clear on the possibility of further fixed-term employment and refrain from using the ‘renewable pending satisfactory performance’ phrase in future advertisements.

Audit Note: We do observe this phrase has been used before on some other job advertisements placed by the Department and so for the avoidance of doubt, we can confirm that such wording is not unique to the recruitment of the Registrar of Lands.

Response from Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“A number of other job adverts have a similar phrase. Some date back to 2010 and quite likely others date much further back than that. The advert for the Registrar’s post with the phrase is certainly not a unique or isolated case. This advert was dealt with in the same way as all others. Nonetheless, this phrase will not be used in future adverts.

Also, as far as I’m advised, this is standard wording in many of our adverts. In addition, the Panel normally clarifies this clause as part of the interview process. In fact, some candidates ask the question before the Panel has had a chance to explain. Perhaps, as the CO has indicated, PoCS can offer some advice on this. As the Chief Officer had previously pointed out: In practice the interviewees are told during interview that any possibility of a contract renewal, whilst subject to satisfactory performance, is ALWAYS subject to the caveat that a suitably qualified Caymanian applicant will get the post.”

Further General Comment from Chief Officer, Ministry of PLAH&I and Director, Lands & Survey Department:

“We note (in the original report) the issue of the legal qualification ‘deterring’ one Caymanian applicant. We do  not  agree  with  the  word  ‘deter’.  Nonetheless,  we  are  firmly  of  the  view  that  some  will  always be  ‘deterred’ (although we don’t think that’s the right word to use) if they don’t meet the academic/experience qualification requirements for a job. That’s just the normal process. ‘Do I meet the requisite criteria? No I don’t, so I won’t apply’. And if anyone – Caymanian or not – doesn’t meet the requisite requirements it is still an option for them to apply (as one individual did in this case). Nonetheless, it is noted that the qualification criteria is fully supported by PoCS.”

Andy Bonner

HR Audit Services Manager, Office of the Deputy Governor.