• No results found

4.7 Year 4: Low productivity, low impact, and controversies on mandate

4.7.5 Controversial dismissals at the Information Department

Towards the end of year 2006, it became known that the Information Director, Ashley, had notified the 3AG that she wished to leave her position. Because she did this without having a new job to go to, personnel interpreted it as yet another sign of a person who did not approve of the 3AG leadership. In an interview, she confirmed that she meant that this leadership had its shortcomings, but she was hesitant to go into detail. Ashley had been in charge of the ABA development projects, she had planned and led several conferences for personnel who had experienced her as a person who genuinely cared for them and tried to mediate between them and the 3AG. The message that she would leave was therefore met with sadness, and it fuelled the annoyance directed towards the 3AG.

One of the last assignments that Ashley took on before leaving, was to suggest a new focus and organization for the Information Department

(ID) at RiR. In November 2006, a consultancy firm was asked to conduct benchmarking in this field, and suggest changes for the ID.

According to the report (Gullers grupp, Nov. 2006), the number of employees ought to be increased considerably, and competence be ameliorated. An ID employee (Sam) explained that the reason for the review was a wish to focus more externally, and “to go out and market RiR”. An auditor (Anne) said that she did not support this approach, as her standpoint was that the report and its content should stand in focus, not the 3AG: “They just want to sit on TV couches and talk.”

A communication strategy (Swedish: kommunikationsstrategi) was established by the 3AG on 13 February, 2007. At about the same time, Ashley presented a document with suggestions as to how the ID could be developed and staffed. On 13 February, a meeting was held at the ID, with the formal aim to discuss the annual plan of operations (Swedish: verksamhetsplan). Three ID employees were then notified that their services would no longer be required as the ID was being re-organized. Sam described how they were totally taken by surprise, and that there was no discussion or dialogue, just “now this is what it is like, and the new positions will be advertised, but there is no point in you applying”.

Ashley explained that all employees at the ID, from then on, should have an academic degree, and that these three employees did not meet this requirement.

Ashley’s suggestions concerning the new organization design and approach for the ID were negotiated with union representatives in accordance with the Swedish Codetermination Act (Swedish:

Medbestämmandelagen, MBL). The two unions (SACO and ST) registered their dissent from the decision to re-organize the ID, arguing that the underlying data was insufficient. They also registered their dissent from the way that the three ID employees were handled in the process. Because they had not formally been given notice (Swedish:

varslade), however, this matter could not be raised further in union meetings.

The (although informal) notice of these three employees gave rise to loud protests from personnel in general at RiR. They were known to be rather silent, but extremely loyal (the Swedish word trotjänare was

repeatedly used) employees, and had been with the authority, and the two former authorities, for many years. Only a year earlier, a headline in the staff magazine was “Sam – a celebrated stand-up comedian”

(KURiREN, 2006/01, p.8). It referred to the Dialogue Day in January 2006, when he performed a show, where issues at RiR were compared to those in any normal family. Sam explained in an interview that he had considered changing his career later, but that he had never wanted or expected it to happen this way.

As concerned Sarah, another of the three employees, she did have a formal academic degree as a journalist, although this education at that time was only two years long. This, and other strengths of hers, were highlighted in a letter from personnel to the 3AG, on 22 February, 2007, where they asked the 3AG to reconsider their decision. Sarah had alone been responsible for the information at PA, and former colleagues testified that she provided a service far beyond what was provided at RiR today:

There was a totally different service at PA, and it was managed by only one single person: Sarah. And then, when she is here, she is worth noting!

Sarah had been received an award at a special ceremony those who had worked for 30 years in Governmental service (Swedish: för nit och redlighet i statens tjänst, NoR), and this was highlighted in the staff magazine (KURiREN, 2006/02). Next to the article was a picture of Sarah and four other RiR employees who were given the same award, and behind them stood the Auditors-General Sophie and Luke.

The third employee who had been given (informal) notice, was responsible for graphic design, tasks that would be passed on to an external bureau instead. Sam explained that the cost for her setting the graphics for each report, was only about 10%, maximum 20%, of the cost charged by the bureau. However, with an external bureau this cost would probably be easier to allocate to the audit organization, rather than as an overhead. Sam explained:

We hid our smiles a bit, she and I, as we noticed the problems now.

The analysis was not very deep. It was not based in reality. We do more and are appreciated more than they actually thought.

He added that he thought results in the consultancy report (benchmarking of the ID) had been requested from start.

A performance auditor explained that people were so upset with the way that these three employees were being treated, that there was a real

“fighting spirit” among personnel. The 3AG, did not agree to any changes, but half a year later (June, 2007), these employees had still not been given notice formally. However, they had been promised that at least from 1 October, 2007, they would be given formal notice, and from that date, they would be allowed to leave with full salary for a year. Already in the spring of 2007, Sam had been allowed to take half his time off. The internal staff magazine, that he had been in charge of (apart from the Intranet), was terminated.

The 3AG had never expected that there would be such a riot among the personnel over these people, Anne said, when describing the general atmosphere at RiR in June 2007:

There is a strong smouldering discontent here. There are people who feel offended and insulted and treated unfairly all the time.

4.7.6 Limited survey reveals continued distrust and