Well, how do you tell from Gavin's figures what's legitimate and what isn't? And how does having the people's names help you do that? Seriously, if we don't have the justification field, we can't tell what the expenses were actually for.Nice strawman, won't work. I'm well aware there are work related expenses that are legitimate.
Are you sure 100% of the expenses were legitimate travel and subsistence? Basically its fine if you abuse the system as long as it's only small amounts .. right?
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
From thestory.ieOriginally Posted by ibis
These removals do not mean the information is redacted per se, it just means that in order to get the data, I agreed to remove certain columns in order to expedite the process. It does not preclude me from seeking the justification field, for example, in the future.
Yes all fields should have been included other than naming the individual officials (for reasons I have stated earlier). As I said, I fully agree with the majority of what Gavin is trying to achieve.
While not claiming a 100% absence of it, we’ll just have to disagree on this perceived 'wink and nod' culture then but the majority of CS & PS expenses are vouched, other than standard subsistence/milegae rates. Managers signing off on these however should satisfy themselves that an actual overnight/10hr absence and correct mileage etc was required, was undertaken and legitimate for the nature of the job.
Looking at the spreadsheet released, no one can tell if its 100%, 90% etc legitimate or 100% abuse and as I pointed out releasing names like this really serves no purpose in identifying abuses in the system. I have not once said that it is ok to abuse small amounts – strawman! FWIW anyway, I believe a banking inquiry should be held in public.
I’ve been open about this during the thread and yes, I am.
I wouldn’t see my response as OTT however you’re entitled to your opinion. I interpreted this statement - ‘When my tax money is being wasted I want to know why, I want to know every detail, who signed off on it, create a profile of this person, name and shame them, have them fired if possible’ as referring to and implying that the complete DAST report was a waste as we have no other reports yet to comment on - perhaps I mistook you, if I did, I apologise. Anyway you still cannot tell if these expenses are legitimate or not by reading the information that was released so you can’t tell if your tax money is being wasted or not.
My ultimate problem with the report is the naming of officials – this thread has proved those concerns to be correct with certain posters insinuating, without foundation, that certain named individuals are abusing the system.
its the department that left out or removed the context, although they probably don't have the extra context in the expenses database ie the purpose of the trip etc. thats where i think thestory.ie are hoping that people will add to the data, if you put in factual information thats puts the information in better or clearer light then you should do that.
you'd could split sheet up into gov/ministers and add in the job titles, issues, places...
gavin has done the process properly and purposefully, but i would be okay leaving out the names of lowest level workers, unless they happened to work directly for the minister.
these are the grades Grade
DAST ACCOUNTANT - GRADE 1
DAST ARCHIVIST
DAST ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL
DAST ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL - HIGHER
DAST ASSISTANT SECRETARY
DAST CLERICAL OFFICER
DAST DIRECTOR - NATIONAL ARCHIVES
DAST EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DAST EXECUTIVE OFFICER - HIGHER SCALE
DAST EXECUTIVE OFFICER - STANDARD SCALE
DAST HIGHER EXECUTIVE OFFICER - HIGHER SCALE
DAST HIGHER EXECUTIVE OFFICER - STANDARD
DAST KEEPER
DAST MINISTER
DAST PERSONAL SECRETARY
DAST PRINCIPAL
DAST PRINCIPAL - HIGHER
DAST SECRETARY GENERAL
DAST SENIOR ARCHIVIST
DAST SERVICES OFFICER
DAST STAFF OFFICER
NULL
looking at some of the names im guessing are lower grades their names pop up on org chats, committee debates etc, if they appear elsewhere in the official capacity then i think there already out in the open and to have their names associated with expense is okay, you can't prevent people like Wolf taking a cheap shot but don't use martin cahill as an example...,although theyre trying to create new precedents i don't see them ever releasing info about frontline workers.
Last edited by lostexpectation; 14th March 2010 at 02:21 PM.
What does the Irish President spend their time doing. Work in progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Er, yes, I read that bit too. What has been released doesn't have the justification field, though. Nor does it answer the main question - why are the names of people important?
Yes, I'd say that's a good and proportionate suggestion. If civil servants either appear in the public eye, are high enough up the chain for them to be personally important, or are political appointees, then their names are relevant - but the ability to pinpoint a low-level clerk doesn't seem useful, except to people who want to speculate pruriently.looking at some of the names im guessing are lower grades their names pop up on org chats, committee debates etc, if they appear elsewhere in the official capacity then i think there already out in the open and to have their names associated with expense is okay, you can't prevent people like Wolf taking a cheap shot but don't use martin cahill as an example...,although theyre trying to create new precedents i don't see them ever releasing info about frontline workers.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
I know it doesn't have the justification field yet. This is the issue.
The top scenarios are:
a. The justification field published and all names OR
b. This justification field published and top level names published
It would be pointless to have expenses with no names attached.
I say a. is the optimal scenario as this would mean that all public sector workers are under scrutiny and will not be tempted to abuse the system no matter what their grade. As this is being paid for on our dime there should be no reason to obfuscate any data
B. is an acceptable scenario but not as optimal as a. At least if the boys at the top are abusing privileges the public will know about it. However if it's ok to report on the big boys you should be reporting on the small players too.
Not really. The big boys in the civil service are part of the political sphere, which makes them of public interest. The lower grades, on the other hand, are not genuinely of public interest - the best reason for having their names is the one you've given (and that Gavin gave earlier), that it might "keep them honest". Unfortunately: (a) that's an argument that does apply to any public money - on that basis, why should we not publish details of everyone's taxes, since then we can tell whether you're being honest about them?; (b) it's as likely to have a depressing effect on PS worker's willingness to incur legitimate and necessary expenses in the first place - after all, if you don't accrue expenses, you don't appear on the lists at all, which many people would find more comfortable.
There is a right to privacy issue here, which cannot be dismissed out of hand as people have been doing. There is also a right to information of public interest, and the two have to be balanced. The view I would take in balancing them is the extent to which the expenses claims of a named junior civil servant on the one hand genuinely impacts the public, and the extent on the other hand to which naming that junior civil servant makes them open to baseless speculation (of the kind already engaged in here) and to prurient curiosity. I'd say it's a fine balance, but I would personally say that at the junior grades the right to privacy and protection of reputation outweighs the degree of public interest.
After all, have a little think about Mr Wolf's sneering little innuendo on this thread. A junior civil servant hasn't the resources to take a libel case, but what Mr Wolf has done there is defame a named individual by implying that they're dishonest. He has lowered their reputation, publicly - if he did the same about a senior civil servant or other public figure, Dave could, quite rightly, expect a take-down notice and/or a court action. As a lower grade civil servant can't afford to take such a case, I would say it falls on the publiciser of the information (Gavin, and the Department) to protect the reputations of those individuals from baseless attacks. I don't think that's been done here, which is disappointing.
Last edited by ibis; 14th March 2010 at 03:14 PM.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Am tending to agree with that after a quick run through the data. The Nulls appear to be political appointees. Michelle Hoctor, for example, is/was Martin Cullen's Press Officer and has followed him around a couple of Departments.
However Seamus Brennan's two appointees - Frank Lahiffe and Tom Rowley - both appear as 'DAST Principal' even though they were with him in various departments.
Without clear designation of status the names appear to be required to make some sense of things.
Fair enough, it may have been an extreme example. I was just trying to point out what could potentially arise when names of officials are given out effectively carte blanche with what would appear to be very little thought or consideration for those involved.
its up to dave to keep his standards here, the names have been released based on considered legal rulings.
the dept should add the job titles but there trying to make it hard work for the journalists, when ken foxe foi'd the gov air travel they just released dates and names,places they didn't release the reason for the trips ie visit finland health services etc, i presume foxe then had to go round searching for that info requesting more info from various gov sections. the gov trying it make it hard to find out about them.
as he says they have this info why don't they release it in a more rounded form
What does the Irish President spend their time doing. Work in progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote