Toast Cain Liddle

[Gethelred]

Yes, it will speak in terms of a department or a branch of that department generally when assessing performance. It may speak of noting instances of interference etc , you'd expect that to happen, I just don't expect any mentions of any individual at all.

What do you expect the report to talk about if not individuals?

Do you expect them to talk about roles? About whether each position is being performed above, below or at expectations and/or AFL average? What do you expect the report to say?

Because I struggle to think the report will not mention any individuals. Individuals comprise departments.

 

[gab213]

What do you expect the report to talk about if not individuals?

Do you expect them to talk about roles? About whether each position is being performed above, below or at expectations and/or AFL average? What do you expect the report to say?

Because I struggle to think the report will not mention any individuals. Individuals comprise departments.

I expect it to talk about processes and organisational failings. It is investigating the Department and its performance as a whole, not individuals.

I expect it to talk about structures. I do expect it to speak of the expectations of those in certain roles, how things should be, how things appear to be. Have there been break downs in the line of command? etc.

There will be no statement like ' Brad Lloyd hasn't performed to a high-level type statement.'
It may say that 'there appears to be a breakdown in communications at the higher levels of the department', I would never expect anybody to be named.

 

[Gethelred]

I expect it to talk about processes and organisational failings. It is investigating the Department and its performance as a whole, not individuals.

I expect it to talk about structures. I do expect it to speak of the expectations of those in certain roles, how things should be, how things appear to be. Have there been break downs in the line of command? etc.

There will be no statement like ' Brad Lloyd hasn't performed to a high-level type statement.'
It may say that 'there appears to be a breakdown in communications at the higher levels of the department', I would never expect anybody to be named.

I have a question: how specific do you think this report will be? Because there's colossal problems with 'there appears to be a breakdown in communicationst at the higher levels of the department'; it's not directed at processes, individuals, structure. It's not solving anything; it's merely announcing a reality.

Do you expect the report just to not go into specifics? Do you expect this report to avoid specifics to avoid blaming people?

Do you think this is a front, made as a salve to the people who are unhappy?

 

[gab213]

I'd say that it would be a bit more elaborate than that, I was just giving an example of what kind of language may be used. If it finds specific examples of failings i'm sure it will be fairly detailed.

I most definitely don't think it's a front. I think that the board is well aware of the issues (or aware that issues do exist) of the department and employing some independent people to look at it probably allows them to get more of the detail flushed out.

The Panel will make its recommendations and the board will adopt those that it feels will rectify the problems. To have commissioned this review means that the board wasn't happy in the first place. I am confident that there will be action and change.

If the review notes that a certain area has failings it doesn't take much to know who the responsible person would be, you don't need to name people.

 

[AceAndy]

I'd say that it would be a bit more elaborate than that, I was just giving an example of what kind of language may be used. If it finds specific examples of failings i'm sure it will be fairly detailed.

I most definitely don't think it's a front. I think that the board is well aware of the issues (or aware that issues do exist) of the department and employing some independent people to look at it probably allows them to get more of the detail flushed out.

The Panel will make its recommendations and the board will adopt those that it feels will rectify the problems. To have commissioned this review means that the board wasn't happy in the first place. I am confident that there will be action and change.

If the review notes that a certain area has failings it doesn't take much to know who the responsible person would be, you don't need to name people.

I think the report is likely to be fairly detailed but unlikely to recommend which individuals should be moved on.

Rather it will give the board cover to make significant changes to the Football department.

I suspect it is unlikely we (the members/public) will see the final report presented to the Board but the Board will refer to the report as justification for any changes to the Football department they will make.

 

[gab213]

I think the report is likely to be fairly detailed but unlikely to recommend which individuals should be moved on.

Rather it will give the board cover to make significant changes to the Football department.

I suspect it is unlikely we (the members/public) will see the final report presented to the Board but the Board will refer to the report as justification for any changes to the Football department they will make.

I'd think we might see a short summary of the report and its recommendations but that's it. We will then see what the results are with the changes that will be made. You're right the report will be the justification for the board action.