Robin Evans Bonus Targets

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Here is one for anybody who likes a good conspiracy theory!

 

I will publish Robin Evans bonus targets within the next couple of days after giving Nigel Johnson an opportunity to explain why the information I requested regarding RE's targets was responded to by him apart from the 2008/9 targets where RE produced his own. I have asked Nigel to supply information so that I can check that what I was given for 2008/9 were the targets set by the remuneration committee.

 

Based on his response I may make the 2008/9 targets available.

 

****** edited to say Robin Evans bonus targets are now published on my blog ********

Edited December 17, 2008 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Chris J W]

There is one thing I can tell you - when I worked for the Civil Service we regularly sent things out as PDF documents, from Word Documents (et al), as we were more content that this format would cause far less compatibility issues for the end user and be far more forgiving of any 'version' problems.

 

I'm not defending BW here, NOR I AM NOT STATING ANY OFFICIAL POLICY OF DEFRA/MAFF FROM 1986 - 2007. ^(*)

 

I also know this to be a fact with non-Service companies when requested for ad-hoc information that PDF is a good and safe generic-a-way to send files.

 

It's probably also a 'Human Nature' thing to get an electronic copy of a file, open it to check it's the one you want, then either just 'Save' it, or re-format just to tidy it up.

 

If you want the original - ask for the Registered File number and ask for a scan. Perhaps a bit arcane, you may admit, but at least you'll know it's the copy that is part of the official record.

 

========

 

^[*] (Had to emphasis that bold bit, I'm still held by the Civil Service Code of Conduct)

[Chris J W]

Have you considered asking The Treasury and The National Audit Office for their reviews and views of BW's Financial standing and how their Bonuses have been paid?

[mayalld]

Here is one for anybody who likes a good conspiracy theory!

 

I will publish Robin Evans bonus targets within the next couple of days after giving Nigel Johnson an opportunity to explain why the information I requested regarding RE's targets was responded to by him apart from the 2008/9 targets where RE produced his own. I have asked Nigel to supply information so that I can check that what I was given for 2008/9 were the targets set by the remuneration committee.

 

Based on his response I may make the 2008/9 targets available.

 

This continual sniping and attempting to paint every response that fails to actually substantiate your theories as some kind of conspiracy is getting more than a little silly.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

There is one thing I can tell you - when I worked for the Civil Service we regularly sent things out as PDF documents, from Word Documents (et al), as we were more content that this format would cause far less compatibility issues for the end user and be far more forgiving of any 'version' problems.

 

I'm not defending BW here, NOR I AM NOT STATING ANY OFFICIAL POLICY OF DEFRA/MAFF FROM 1986 - 2007. ^(*)

 

I also know this to be a fact with non-Service companies when requested for ad-hoc information that PDF is a good and safe generic-a-way to send files.

 

It's probably also a 'Human Nature' thing to get an electronic copy of a file, open it to check it's the one you want, then either just 'Save' it, or re-format just to tidy it up.

 

If you want the original - ask for the Registered File number and ask for a scan. Perhaps a bit arcane, you may admit, but at least you'll know it's the copy that is part of the official record.

 

========

 

^[*] (Had to emphasis that bold bit, I'm still held by the Civil Service Code of Conduct)

 

That is certainly one reason for converting from .doc to .pdf. The other reason is that word often leaves information within its file format that you would prefer others not to see! By converting a file to .pdf this information is removed. It is now becoming generally accepted practise to convert files to remove information.

[Chris J W]

That is certainly one reason for converting from .doc to .pdf. The other reason is that word often leaves information within its file format that you would prefer others not to see! By converting a file to .pdf this information is removed. It is now becoming generally accepted practise to convert files to remove information.

 

But probably more by accident than by design.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This continual sniping and attempting to paint every response that fails to actually substantiate your theories as some kind of conspiracy is getting more than a little silly.

 

I don't seem to recall mentioning conspiracy until a few moments ago.

 

Perhaps you will tell us what your theories are as to why the information I requested has come from two different sources.

 

Better still, perhaps British Waterways will provide a response - as everyone will note I have asked them.

[Chris J W]

A few minutes? Your OP was an hour and a half ago!

 

During the latter years of my Service life my Objectives had nothing directly as stated on paper ^[*] to do with either the staff that worked for me or the management above me. The implementation and results of their Objectives were covered by more blanket Post/Grade objectives - eg: an inherent objective of The Post was to ensure that staff below that post did their best to obtain their objectives; this blanket being covered by the wider remit of the yearly reporting round and how that was implemented and understood.

 

 

 

 

=====

 

[*] The definition of Objective has changed a bit over the years, in my experience, but has rarely had the specific of 'help those above or below me'

Edited December 15, 2008 by Chris J W

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But probably more by accident than by design.

 

Maybe, but Word tends to hang onto change tracking and comment information (otherwise known as collaboration data) and many companies are now insisting that Word documents are converted to pdf to ensure this information is removed.

 

The reason for this is that, although Microsoft provides software that will remove such data, it is difficult to ensure that it is used as the distributed file is still ".doc". Obviously, if company standards insist that the document is converted to .pdf then this hidden data is removed and it can be seen to have been removed as the file is .pdf.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A few minutes? Your OP was an hour and a half ago!

 

When I was younger 90 minutes would have been a long time but now it is just a moment:-)

[nigel fryer]

Are we talking SPOOKS ???

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Are we talking SPOOKS ???

 

No we are talking SMART - and, in particular, why Robin Evans 2008/9 bonus targets conform to SMART criteria whilst his previous targets and those of other directors do not.

[roger]

This continual sniping and attempting to paint every response that fails to actually substantiate your theories as some kind of conspiracy is getting more than a little silly.

 

I think you should work for BW - from what I have read of your posts you would be extremely good at cooking the books and manipulating stuff.

[Chris J W]

Maybe, but Word tends to hang onto change tracking and comment information (otherwise known as collaboration data) and many companies are now insisting that Word documents are converted to pdf to ensure this information is removed.

 

The reason for this is that, although Microsoft provides software that will remove such data, it is difficult to ensure that it is used as the distributed file is still ".doc". Obviously, if company standards insist that the document is converted to .pdf then this hidden data is removed and it can be seen to have been removed as the file is .pdf.

 

Proof?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I think you should work for BW - from what I have read of your posts you would be extremely good at cooking the books and manipulating stuff.

 

I also think Dave should work for British Waterways or, at least, get paid a bonus for posting. His efforts have managed to ensure a rather boring topic has been brought to the attention of thousands :-)

 

Since the departure of Eugene Baston from British Waterways, they have been very reluctant to engage the boating pubic on this or any other forum.

 

Whilst individuals may have had differing experiences, it would seem to me that Eugene left he took a couple of with him that had be ill for some time - Mr Openness and Mr Accountability.

 

Regards

 

Allan

[Chris J W]

I think you should work for BW - from what I have read of your posts you would be extremely good at cooking the books and manipulating stuff.

 

I don't normally agree with Dave's view of the world, but on this I do.

 

Firstly, though, I do applaud Allan's work to highlight the possible incompetence of BW and to make them even more publicly accountable.

 

HOWEVER I do have issues with his view that it is purely for the financial gain of The Top Of The Shop. I've said before, and I'll repeat it here, that bonuses for ALL staff in the Civil Service is scrutinized by both The Treasury and The National Audit Office. Neither bodies are known for their love of money being spent, and for senior jobs like these there will be even more scrutiny. Hence my suggestion that Allan contact these bodies.

 

Also, given the ways that Performance targets are worded and viewed in-house these days (at least by time in Defra) is that there is more within the system itself than the words given in a A4 sheet of words - most of it is in the process and understanding, so you need to have the entire context; especially for higher profile (relative to the grade) much is given to the initial paperwork of a Project Initiation process paperwork. You need the entire context.

 

My apologies to Allan, and I know we've communicated via PM regarding the FOI process, but so far I cannot see or imply direct evidence of the criminal fraud you are trying to find that can't be explained by procedure and non-contextual reading.

 

Incompetence? That's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

 

[edit for highlights]

Edited December 15, 2008 by Chris J W

[roger]

I also think Dave should work for British Waterways or, at least, get paid a bonus for posting. His efforts have managed to ensure a rather boring topic has been brought to the attention of thousands :-)

 

Since the departure of Eugene Baston from British Waterways, they have been very reluctant to engage the boating pubic on this or any other forum.

 

Whilst individuals may have had differing experiences, it would seem to me that Eugene left he took a couple of with him that had be ill for some time - Mr Openness and Mr Accountability.

 

Regards

 

Allan

 

Eugene might have been someone to you who was open and accountable, but he wasnt - at least to me. Contrary to most people's popular opinion of him, he was just another expert at BW cover ups. I had a lengthy experience of his expertise at cover ups. Its a very boring subject and one that doesnt grab the attention of many canallers. Dave Mayall might have brought attention to this thread but that doesnt mean he would be an accountable BW director. Do keep up the good work anyway it is time BW stopped practising 'thin ethics.' I'm still keen to learn the whys and wherefores of Robin Evans' bonuses.

[Chris J W]

Ah-hem - I think you'll find that I have put more in this thread than Dave.

 

And, Allan, if you think it's such a boring thread .. then why post or make such an issue of it?

[roger]

Incompetence? That's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

It is clear that BW shouldnt be incompetent. If they are then they cannot be justified as being in charge of the waterways. Incompetence is a serious thing, take for example the failures in the Baby P affair. Or the De Menzes shooting. Incompetence leads to cover ups and liesand systematic failures. It is up to us to ensure that BW is more competent and does what it is expected to do, and for it not to become expert at papering over the cracks.

[Chris J W]

Eugene might have been someone to you who was open and accountable, but he wasnt - at least to me. Contrary to most people's popular opinion of him, he was just another expert at BW cover ups. I had a lengthy experience of his expertise at cover ups.

 

Proof? At least what he posted on here was under the BW banner and, therefore, accountable.

 

Its a very boring subject and one that doesnt grab the attention of many canallers.

 

This particular topic aside, you never know - people may well find it interesting and learn some things from it. Would you care to share?

[carlt]

Eugene might have been someone to you who was open and accountable, but he wasnt - at least to me. Contrary to most people's popular opinion of him, he was just another expert at BW cover ups. I had a lengthy experience of his expertise at cover ups.

In your opinion, based on your experience.

 

My opinion, based on my experience, in dealing with Eugene is in complete contrast, to yours.

 

One thing Eugene always did was leave lines of communication open, unlike his colleagues, in other departments.

 

What you could be sure of, when reading correspondence from Eugene, was that he had actually read your letter and was genuinely answering the points raised, unlike his colleagues, in other departments.

 

Whether or not one agreed with him was, of course, another matter but that is no criticism of him.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't normally agree with Dave's view of the world, but on this I do.

 

Firstly, though, I do applaud Allan's work to highlight the possible incompetence of BW and to make them even more publicly accountable.

 

HOWEVER I do have issues with his view that it is purely for the financial gain of The Top Of The Shop. I've said before, and I'll repeat it here, that bonuses for ALL staff in the Civil Service is scrutinized by both The Treasury and The National Audit Office. Neither bodies are known for their love of money being spent, and for senior jobs like these there will be even more scrutiny. Hence my suggestion that Allan contact these bodies.

 

Also, given the ways that Performance targets are worded and viewed in-house these days (at least by time in Defra) is that there is more within the system itself than the words given in a A4 sheet of words - most of it is in the process and understanding, so you need to have the entire context; especially for higher profile (relative to the grade) much is given to the initial paperwork of a Project Initiation process paperwork. You need the entire context.

 

My apologies to Allan, and I know we've communicated via PM regarding the FOI process, but so far I cannot see or imply direct evidence of the criminal fraud you are trying to find that can't be explained by procedure and non-contextual reading.

 

Incompetence? That's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

 

[edit for highlights]

 

I am not trying to find or imply evidence of criminal fraud. This would require a knowledge of accountancy far greater than mine (my knowledge of accountancy extends to being told the debit is the side nearest the window:-).

 

However, what I am suggesting is that all is not well with British Waterways directors bonus scheme. This may simply be due to incompetence but as far as I am concerned the jury is still out.

 

What can be said with certainty is that bonus targets set for directotors do not follow SMART criteria.

[Chris J W]

It is clear that BW shouldnt be incompetent. If they are then they cannot be justified as being in charge of the waterways. Incompetence is a serious thing, take for example the failures in the Baby P affair. Or the De Menzes shooting. Incompetence leads to cover ups and liesand systematic failures. It is up to us to ensure that BW is more competent and does what it is expected to do, and for it not to become expert at papering over the cracks.

 

You've misunderstood what I was saying (and, may I say, throwing the De-Menzes shooting and Baby P into the argument really doesn't help as they are issues WAY above the problems with BW) ... there is a big difference between being crap at something and still managing to get paid for it (Incompetent) and being deliberately crap by design and then running away with the money (fraud).

 

 

 

 

I am not trying to find or imply evidence of criminal fraud. This would require a knowledge of accountancy far greater than mine (my knowledge of accountancy extends to being told the debit is the side nearest the window:-).

 

However, what I am suggesting is that all is not well with British Waterways directors bonus scheme. This may simply be due to incompetence but as far as I am concerned the jury is still out.

 

What can be said with certainty is that bonus targets set for directotors do not follow SMART criteria.

 

OK, we may may well be suffering a case of semantics here, but the way I read your blog and your post here is the top of the shop of BW are working deliberately to ensure that their bonuses are acquired to such an extent that they are prepared to deliberately falsify and bias consultations. To my viewing, that makes me think you are accusing them of fraud.

 

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, the words you may well see written down on the page of 'Objectives' may well not appear SMART - but they will be when read within the full context of the BW Annual Reporting Procedures and the scrutiny of The Treasury and The National Audit Office.

 

 

And, again, apologies if if feels we're at loggerheads over cross purposes.

[Chris Pink]

Proof?

 

a quote from Microsoft (they should know);

 

When you distribute an Office document electronically, the document might contain information that you do not want to share publicly, such as information you’ve designated as “hidden” or information that allows you to collaborate on writing and editing the document with others.

 

The Remove Hidden Data add-in is a tool that you can use to remove personal or hidden data that might not be immediately apparent when you view the document in your Microsoft Office application.

 

....

 

Notes

You should run the Remove Hidden Data add-in on files when you are ready to publish them. This is because some of the data that the tool removes is used by Office for collaboration features, such as Track Changes, Comments, and Send for Review.

You should always save to a new file name, rather than overwrite the original file with the new document, in order to preserve a copy of the document containing the original data.

 

Original Link

 

 

OK, we may may well be suffering a case of semantics here, but the way I read your blog and your post here is the top of the shop of BW are working deliberately to ensure that their bonuses are acquired to such an extent that they are prepared to deliberately falsify and bias consultations. To my viewing, that makes me think you are accusing them of fraud.

 

Although there may be grounds for accusing Allan of 'having a view' i see nothing wrong at all in his requests. I, for one, would like to get all this information out on the carpet for a poke through. After all the directors of BW all work for me (and Allan, and you) and, as such, I like to know what my employees are up to in full detail.

 

There is a clear conflict in having bonuses linked to consultations.

 

There is a big issue with having bonuses at all in a sector that is incapable of growth in the true business sense.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

OK, we may may well be suffering a case of semantics here, but the way I read your blog and your post here is the top of the shop of BW are working deliberately to ensure that their bonuses are acquired to such an extent that they are prepared to deliberately falsify and bias consultations. To my viewing, that makes me think you are accusing them of fraud.

 

I am not accusing BW of fraud - I am accusing them of unfairness. I think my email to Simon Salem makes this clear:-

 

…………………………………Finally, I intend to ask the Waterways Ombudsman to investigate if you (or any other director) has in the last five years had bonus agreements part linked to licencing revenue. It would seem to me to be very wrong to do this in cases where British Waterways have a monopoly. In particular, I would see it as unfair for a director to be in charge of a consultation when he has an undeclared financial stake in its outcome.

 

As an aside, I also believe, in principal, that directors bonuses should not be linked to mooring revenue. Whilst not a monopoly, British Waterways can and does influence this marketplace and one is left wondering if initiatives such as the mooring tenders trial have more to do with directors personal financial gain than a need to find a market price.

 

There is general disquiet amongst stakeholders at the moment regarding directors being awarded large bonuses based on unknown criteria. I would welcome your personal assurance that you have not in the last five years had a bonus agreement linked to licencing or mooring revenue. If that is not the case then please explain why this has not at least been declared in the three consultations on mooring/licencing to date and why the BWAF have not been informed in respect of the current round of proposed licencing increases and changes.

I would add that British Waters chose not to respond to the above and chose not to respond to my article although I gave them the opportunity to do so prior to publication.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Allan(nb Albert)