This blog is becoming my list of things to sort out before we go. There is so much, and I can’t pretend it’s not stressful. I think the cats are sensing the stress too as a couple of them have disappeared again.
It’s not for me to go into detail on these issues, but the Government has said that it won’t fly us back at the end of my partner’s contract. I don’t really understand why and I can’t work out how we can have had an odd number of flights. Surely every return flight that starts in the UK ends there? It looks like I will need to put together a spreadsheet. But we have definitely paid for some flights ourselves, so I am sure they owe us at least one.
In any case, the contract says we get an end-of-contract flight, and that’s all that should matter. But I think I’d rather us make the booking ourselves and have them reimburse us. The Government will only book Virgin Atlantic, and Virgin doesn’t take pets. I think the Virgin-only policy is something to do with the means of payment and the closure of the Royal Bank of Canada branch here, but again I’m not entirely sure.
We also have two cars, which is unusual, particularly given that my partner is blind. We used to rent a car, but a few years ago the Government decided that she wasn’t entitled to a car allowance anymore because they had changed the General Orders to exclude blind people from getting it. There are a lot of changes to General Orders that I could have recommended, but this probably wouldn’t have been one of them.
In the end, they agreed to reinstate the payment but only because we agreed to buy a car. The irony of this is that the rental car was in her name, but she is not entitled to own a car because she cannot get insurance. So, it’s my car. In fact, I have two cars. A few months ago I bought a car with a manual gearbox as someone was leaving the island and didn’t have time to sell it. I bought it as I thought I would have time to sell it. We had also heard that there was a story circulating that my partner is not blind at all and has been seen driving around the island, so having two cars for a while was funny. But then one broke down, and I haven’t had time to fix it yet.
“We’ve seen her driving” is an extreme version of “you don’t look disabled.” But you get used to these things. As far as we are aware, the Government’s policy that people with a car allowance own a vehicle only applies to blind people. We were happy renting, and we’ve always known people who rent. It meant we could hand the car back when we went abroad, and it would save a lot of trouble when leaving. Suppose, for example, after being required to buy a car, we only got two months’ notice to quit. (Actually, that’s how we got the second car in the first place).
It’s worth pointing out that the offer letter states a total remuneration figure. How the allowances are broken down, and who gets which one, is an internal matter for Government bookkeepers. To emphasise this, when my partner changed jobs she was given an entirely different set of allowances. She asked if she could keep the entertainment allowance, which was taxable, and instead give up the car allowance, which wasn’t taxable. It seemed reasonable and in the Government’s financial interests. It also made sense given that the Government has no written policy on how the car allowance applies to people who can’t drive due to a physical or sensory impairment. As regular readers will know, this is an unlawful breach of Clause 81(f) of the Labour Code. We were trying to be helpful, but they said DFID wouldn’t allow it.
One thing you might be asking is why we did not see this coming. Why did we not think that the contract wouldn’t be extended? There are two very good reasons. First, a request for an extension had been made months ago, and there was no reason to believe it wouldn’t be agreed. Both the non-disabled men in the office, including someone in the same team (with the same professional qualification), had their contracts extended. They were notified very late so you can’t infer anything from a substantial delay. My partner was also bringing an important long-term project to a conclusion, (relating to something the Government has been struggling with for a decade) and the Premier appeared to fully support this. For example, in the Legislative Assembly earlier this year, he said the following.
“Madam Speaker, our current procurement arrangements meet the requirements of international donors and were highly praised in the international assessment carried out by the CDB (actually it was OECD, but I’m being pedantic). However, Madam Speaker (we plan) to raise our standards even higher… The extensive transformation programme, which is led by the Head of Procurement with technical and financial support from the CDB, is due to be completed in 2023… This initiative, Madam Speaker, forms part of our plan to create a local procurement profession that will be key to the creation of a sustainable procurement function…Departmental tenders are to be reintroduced but under enhanced governance arrangements. The Request for Quotes process will be simplified further… Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the new rules will also allow the Government to use evaluation criteria that benefit small and micro-enterprises, and enterprises employing women, youth…, elderly (and) persons with disabilities”.
It all seemed very exciting. As I’ve pointed out before, and as others are now echoing, procurement staff are the rockstars of public service. But the Government can change its mind if it wants to, and we don’t have a problem with that. Things change, and we can’t stay here forever. But I still maintain that two months’ notice after five years is too short, and is also discourteous. I also believe that the contractual notice period may actually be longer. But we really could do without any more contractual disputes adding to our burdens at this time.
Craig Brewin’s Blog 
Craig, your story is sadly not unique. Inconsistency is the hallmark of the HR department. The government, and I don’t mean Ministers, is all over the place on every issue of staff management and the incompetence is by design. It allows the person at the head to do what they like according to their personal feelings and not fairness and standard practice.
Apparently the Governor is carrying out basic administrative functions in the HR department at the moment, despite the fact that there are two former Chief HR Officers present in the Office of the Deputy Governor. This means that you will have no one to appeal to if you wanted to resolve your travails.
Interesting that your Partner is being given such short and discourteous notice while at the same time the other qualified procurement officer is also leaving. You referenced the Premier, but experience should tell us that it is possible that he had absolutely no prior knowledge of what is happening with your partner.
LikeLike
The other procurement officer has already left, so they won’t have any procurement officers. He’s gone to South Sudan because it is more affordable for his family to be with him. But the Government will cope fine with any pipeline procurements. The Governor is competent on these issues and has the PMO support. FCDO has unlimited funds to bring people in too (and unlimited funds to ship people home). There are plenty of jobs in England, and elsewhere. So everyone will be happy when it is all sorted. But the short notice is stressful, and I’m feeling it. Asking people to apply for jobs, do their current job, and arrange a long-distance relocation, all at the same time, and over a few weeks, is not the best way of ensuring the welfare of the staff. We have other disputes with HR too, which I think they hope will go away when we leave. The daily rate of a procurement consultant is far higher than a flight back to England so fighting battles with us is pointless really. But leaving is our priority, and we’ll see how we feel about everything else when we have gone. I don’t normally single out different parts of the Government. It’s all one Government to me, even though the colonial civil service model implies otherwise. The Premier has to take some responsibility for what is happening on his watch, and I’ve written about this before. https://livinginmontserrat.wordpress.com/2022/03/05/who-runs-the-montserrat-civil-service/ Also there is no doubt that he is aware of what is going on, and that he knew, and probably agreed, long before we did. The post was advertised in July. He won’t know what notice we have to give on our property lease, how many pets and cars we have, or how we’ll get everything back to the UK. He won’t have asked how easy it will be to find another job. But he will have asked how much it will cost to replace the Head of Procurement, and whether there is the money for it. Also, he will have asked how long the post is likely to remain unfilled, and whether this is likely to have any negative impact on the port project. Obviousy we aren’t his priority, the projects are, but he must be aware of what is going on. The Governor too, who would have insisted the post be advertised (that’s an FCDO requirement) but probably didn’t know we hadn’t been told. Who’s behind all this we’ll never know. I have heard the Premier say that he doesn’t get involved in procurement matters, and also that he doesn’t get involved in HR matters, but there is involved and there is involved.
LikeLike