|
Karl Schembri
The Armed Forces of Malta gave its first indications of agreement with the Ombudsman about controversial promotions procedures it has adopted in the last years when the new Commander pledged with MaltaToday to take up recommendations for an overhaul of the system.
Brigadier Carmel Vassallo admitted in an interview that the Ombudsman’s recommendations – which have fallen on deaf ears for the last eight years – were correct.
“Yes I want to redress this situation, it’s one of the first issues I want to tackle,” Vassallo said when asked whether he would take the Ombudsman’s recommendations on board.
Brigadier Vassallo’s statements mark a shift from the defensive attitude adopted by his predecessor, Brigadier Rupert Montanaro, who repeatedly refused to heed the recommendations of Ombudsman Joe Sammut in three successive mass promotions exercises - claiming they were impossible to implement.
However, despite the new Commander’s willingness to change the system, Brigadier Vassallo still predicts problems when it comes to the next promotions exercise as more than three years would have passed since the last one.
“The next promotions exercise will probably be similar to that of three years ago, because with at least three years having passed you’re bound to give promotions in bulk again.
“But after that we have to make sure we start implementing what the Ombudsman rightly suggested,” Brig. Vassallo said. “We haven’t managed so far but we should be able to do it. If we give up we won’t manage for sure.”
Only last year, an exasperated Ombudsman said the AFM was “in a hell of a mess” and warned that with the promotions already back-dated by two years, the upcoming promotion exercise was set to generate yet another flood of complaints.
The way bulk promotions are given is prompting “disgruntlement and loss of morale among AFM personnel,” the Ombudsman said in a special report on promotions in the army last year.
Thanks to irregular promotions, the AFM has the track record as the topmost government entity to generate complaints from its staff. The last promotions exercise carried out in 2001 involved no less than 379 promotions, generating 70 complaints to the Ombudsman – that is around 20 per cent of the AFM’s staff complement.
While a large number of AFM staff who were promoted in 2001 claimed to the Ombudsman that their appointments should have been backdated, an even larger amount of personnel complained about the introduction, without any prior warning, of a trade qualification for eligibility to be promoted.
The Ombudsman’s report insisted on the need for “transparent, consistent and impartial procedures” in the whole exercise.
The Ombudsman also ruled out any patchwork to the present system and called for a veritable overhaul.
• Promotions in bulk
The Ombudsman highlights batch promotions as the main cause of complaints. In the cases he dealt with, what was approved in 1996 was not implemented in 1998 and 2001. Brigadier Montanaro used to contend that it was possible to make appointments on a regular basis before the fully approved complement is reached. The Ombudsman says however that there are no valid reasons to justify this approach and appointments to replace normal wastage should be issued in due time. “As a direct consequence of these delays, appointments are then given to almost one fifth of AFM members with all the frustrations and suspicions that any such batch promotions normally generate,” the Ombudsman said. “At the same time, this system renders the whole exercise very difficult, if not impossible, to check. It is also likely to lead to genuine arithmetical and other errors which could in turn contribute towards the appointment of the wrong persons, and such mistakes are known to be difficult to correct.”
• Sudden introduction of new requirements for promotions
The AFM created “a great deal of confusion” when without any prior notice it re-introduced the minimum trade qualifications on the basis of an order issued in 1971, but which was not applied for 25 years. The Ombudsman says that the introduction of a new compulsory requirement without any prior warning to all potential applicants shows a lack of transparency and is unfair especially on those who were not given the opportunity or the motivation to obtain the required qualifications.
• Points awarded according to particular vacancies
The Commission for the Investigation of Injustices had already pointed out that treating AFM units (three regiments and the Headquarters) as discrete units for purposes of promotions to posts that are common to each unit leads to injustices. The Ombudsman says this goes against values of meritocracy and such a system is unacceptable. “By virtue of this policy, promotions are to a very large extent dependent on the availability of vacant posts within a unit and not on the relative merit of the candidate,” the Ombudsman says. “Points should only reflect merit and not chance opportunities. There were even cases where within the same sub-unit points were awarded on the basis of the availability of a vacancy to some candidates but not to others.”
• Recommended promotions irrespective of merit
Although promotions are supposed to be awarded to AFM staff according to points scored in line with set criteria, under the existing system even high scorers were not promoted, either because of lack of a vacancy within their unit or because they were not recommended. The requirement of a recommendation by a candidate’s superior is considered to be subjective and renders the points system useless, the Ombudsman says. In cases he investigated there were persons who were recommended for promotion for five consecutive years with glowing remarks regarding their performance standards and suitability for promotion, but who then were not recommended for promotion performance assessment reports. “Undoubtedly this is a defective system which gives rise to the exercise of improper discretion, too subjective judgements, lack of transparency and justified or unjustified suspicions,” the Ombudsman said.
• The Commander’s ‘limited discretion’
Allowing “limited discretion” to the AFM Commander to promote individuals not on the basis of the approved points system can have considerable damaging effects on the credibility of the AFM promotions system, the Ombudsman warns. Although he had only one such case to investigate, the Ombudsman said this had a strong negative impact on the morale of AFM staff.
• Impeded career progression
The Ombudsman refers to cases where the number of vacancies within a unit was determined in a way that was not in accordance with the unit’s approved staff complement and when personnel were placed in a way that was seen to block the promotion prospects of those who aspired to fill the post.
• Accelerated promotions
The award of promotions to personnel in possession of specialised qualifications is accepted but awarding accelerated promotions as a reward based on a subjective evaluation of the ability and merits of the chosen candidates lacks transparency and gives rise to feelings of dissatisfaction among AFM personnel, the Ombudsman warns.
|
