To Minute or not to Minute – DOT officials’ dilemma

At the sitting of the Steam Packet Tynwald Select Committee, held on the 3^rd March, 2008,  it was confirmed by the Department of Transport officials that it was routine not to Minute the meetings held with officials from the Steam Packet.

 

Captain Mike Brew, Director of Harbours informed the Committee that monthly meetings were held with the company. Normally these meetings were attended by himself, Rodney Christopher, Director of Properties, the Managing Director of the Steam Packet and other directors, “as appropriate.”

 Apparently ‘political’ and ‘Chief Executive’ level meetings are also held, “as determined by events.”

Committee member, George Waft MLC, sought clarification of the frequency of the meetings, and followed up the response with a question about who minuted the meetings; and who then got to see them.

 

“The meetings have an agenda, but they are informal and they are not minuted,” stated Captain Brew.

 

Whether this came as much of a surprise to the Committee members as to the members of the public, listening to the evidence, we will probably have to wait for the Committee’s report; as Committee Chairman, Steve Rodan SHK, just thanked Capt. Brew for his answer and moved on to another subject.

 

The reason why the answer came as such a surprise to the Manx Herald is that the issue of the conduct of meetings and the taking of Minutes, or more accurately, the not taking of Minutes has featured heavily in past Select Committee and Public Inquiry reports: The Mount Murray Commission of Inquiry Reports of June 2003 & 2004, the A D Radcliffe Select Committee Report of June 2001, and the P & H Fletcher Select Committee Report of October 1997; with the latter being particularly of significance to this issue.

 

This latter Report - which followed the investigation of a Petition of Grievance, relating to a planning matter – commented on a meeting held between a DLGE official, the Petitioners, their legal representative and a representative of the NFU; when no record was made of the meeting.

 

Although it did not form part of the Committee’s formal recommendations, the Report makes clear that (at the minimum) “adequate notes” of a meeting “should always be taken and placed on file.”

 

This point was highlighted, by John Shimmin MHK, in the ensuing Tynwald debate, and it was recognised by the Chairman of the Committee, Noel Cringle SHK, now President of Tynwald that it was a significant point. In his reply to the debate he said, “Mr Shimmin also commented that in fact it was an important lesson to learn that all minutes should be kept from meetings, and I think that is an important thing which we should learn out of this one, and particularly when government officers are put in an invidious position. I think that is important for members of this Court to take on board as well - that we should not put our civil servants unnecessarily into that position.”

 The A D Radcliffe Report refers to the section of the ‘Fletcher Report’ on note taking, and states that it should become standard practise that all departmental meetings are properly recorded.

The Mount Murray Report deals, inter alia, with issues relating to ‘minute taking’ and the introduction of “core guidance across government on matters covering consultation between departments and the business community”.

 

The Manx Herald contacted Captain Brew and Mr Christopher following their appearance before the Select Committee.

 

Mr Christopher was reluctant to discuss the issue but Captain Brew was more forthcoming.

 

He informed the Manx Herald that the ‘operational’ meetings, with the Steam Packet Company officials, were effectively held for the purpose of gathering and/or exchanging information. During the meetings a number of issues would be discussed, which possibly included some ‘user agreement’ issues, and that they would be ‘noting’ the items. He said that if ‘decisions’ were required they would go through the ‘normal’ political process.

 

However, he did say that an internal review was being undertaken to establish which ‘category’ of meeting their meetings fell under; and whether it was a requirement for them to be minuted.

 

The Manx Herald then contacted the Chief Secretary, Mary Williams, to inquire what guidance had been issued, in response to the Select Committee and Public Inquiry Reports.

 

Mrs Williams passed the request lower down the chain of command. We received a reply, from an officer, that pointed us in the direction of the ‘Corporate Governance’ section of the Government’s website; and the Government Code. It was pointed out that Part 5 of the Civil Service Code was reproduced within the Code.

 

Although interesting, it does not appear to provide guidance on meetings between government and the business community and the making of a record of the meeting.

 

We were also directed to Aspect 3 of the Code, which deals with ‘Structures and Processes for Corporate Governance’, and a document entitled ‘Guidance notes for minute taking’.

 

This document deals more with the format of the minutes, and how ‘decisions’ are recorded, rather than the circumstances in which minutes should be taken.

 

Therefore, there appears, to the Manx Herald, to be an absence of clear, unambiguous guidance for government members and officials on two very important issues. This is despite numerous recommendations, that have been debated by Tynwald and, in essence, accepted by government.

 Unless the government can show to the contrary, the Manx Herald believes that this failure is yet another example of a sloppy, self-satisfied, complacent administration.