Scope creep and other names we have been called

Late last month, child and youth officer Jane Morley released her report into the "timelines, changes to terms of reference, and other matters relating to the director's case review" of Sherry Charlie's death. Among its findings: the fact many of those at children and family development believe case reviewers should have "the scope to deal with issues that come up" during an investigation rather than being hamstrung by their terms of reference. But, according to Ms. Morley, "not all those with experience considered that the scope of reviews should be very broad." Her example: Clara Robbins, the former manager of the ministry of children and family development's case review unit, who told the child and youth officer "that 'scope creep' was always a concern and the terms of reference could be too broad. She though that to go back to look at the practice issues relating to old intakes would be a 'a real fishing expedition.'" An interesting view - especially since Ms. Robbins is presently serving as the research and analysis director for Ted Hughes's B.C. Children and Youth Review which is looking into "the review process for child deaths, including how results of reviews are internally addressed."


So who on earth chose her to do the fishing for Mr Hughes? And how on earth can she be expected to serve the BC Children & Youth Review objectively, given both her former role and her views.

I guess this is exactly why they try to keep such a tight lid on things!

So what is the problem with MCFD?

I would suggest that the many reasons given on this "blog" all speak to the issue of the Premier's management abilities, in as much as, the issue of poor management is not specific to MCFD but is a systemic disease of this government.

As an example, one need look no futher then to MCFD's sister ministry, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance where they refuse to track one of their most, if not the most important Key Performance Indicator (KPI) i.e. the 6% of welfare recipents who were cut-off welfare because they were classified as having "persistent multiple barriers to employment".

So why the fear to do so? Why do they refuse to track this most important KPI? Why do they not want to make this indicator of management efficiency and effectiveness "transparent".

Perhaps it is because they fear an insecure and weak political master who in is frantic desire to be loved believes that it is always just a communications problem and not a problem of his poor management abilities.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.