In a series of recent articles (linked to below) I highlighted the disturbing details surrounding the Our Hospital Modernisation (OHM) project’s Phase 2, where escalating costs were concealed from key decision-makers. A review1 into this fiasco has now been published, but rather than delivering the accountability that many were hoping for, the findings suggest a troubling leniency toward those responsible.
The Officers’ Actions: A Serious Lapse in Judgment
The review acknowledges that three key officers involved in the OHM project made significant errors in judgment. These individuals failed to disclose critical cost increases to the Project Governance Board and the political committee at a time when accurate financial information was paramount. Despite knowing that the project’s cost estimates had risen from an original £112 million to as much as £133 million, the officers allowed the project to proceed based on outdated figures, leading to a gross misrepresentation of the financial realities.
These actions, or rather inactions, had severe consequences. Decision-makers were left in the dark, operating on the false assumption that the project’s finances were under control. This not only jeopardized the project but also put the credibility of Guernsey’s governance processes into question. Yet, despite these failures, the review concluded that no disciplinary action is warranted—a decision that seems to fly in the face of what accountability should look like in public service.
However, I do not consider that any currently employed officer has acted in a way that could be
Governance Arrangements for Capital
regarded as misconduct or should be subject to sanction.
Programmes and Projects, pg 10, 18/07/2024
“HSC stated that the staff who knew in February 2023 are no longer employed by the States. Deputy St Pier’s Rule 14 questions also asked for details about their departures and whether they retired and on what pension.” 2 16/05/2024.
I’m sorry, but another term for “weasel words” is “evasive language.”
Leniency Masquerading as Fairness?
The review’s conclusion that the officers’ failures were merely lapses in judgment rather than misconduct seems to be an overly generous interpretation of events. While it may be true that there is no evidence of deliberate intent to deceive, the distinction between poor judgment and misconduct is a narrow one—especially when public funds and the trust of the electorate are at stake.
It’s important to consider that gross negligence or significant lapses in judgment can, and often should, result in disciplinary action. In this case, officers’ failure to act appropriately when the cost discrepancies became apparent led to a scenario where the States of Deliberation approved funding based on inaccurate data. The public and political outcry that followed was entirely justified, yet the review’s decision not to hold these officers to account suggests a troubling tolerance for such failures.
Manipulating Figures to Avoid Scrutiny?
One particularly concerning detail that emerged from the review was the apparent manipulation of the optimism bias during a key meeting in January 2024, where a political representative was present for the first time. The optimism bias, which had been significantly reduced from 8.65% to 4.96%, was much lower than the 20% typically used in similar NHS projects. This adjustment seems to have been made to present a more palatable financial picture, potentially downplaying the severity of the cost increases to avoid triggering further scrutiny. This raises serious questions about whether the officers were actively trying to minimize the perceived impact of the project’s financial challenges in front of political overseers.
A Culture of Diffusion and Deflection
The review places heavy emphasis on systemic issues, such as poor communication and unclear governance structures, as the primary causes of the fiasco. While there is merit in addressing these broader problems, this approach risks diffusing responsibility to the point where no one is held accountable. The officers involved were not operating in a vacuum; they had specific duties and obligations they failed to meet. By focusing on systemic flaws, the review effectively deflects attention away from individual accountability.
This leniency could set a dangerous precedent. Suppose severe lapses in judgment are consistently treated as mere errors rather than grounds for disciplinary action. In that case, there is little incentive for public servants to uphold the highest standards of professionalism and transparency. The message sent is that even significant failures in managing public projects can be excused with a slap on the wrist, as long as no deliberate wrongdoing is found.
Public Trust at Risk
One of the most glaring oversights of the review is its failure to consider the public and political perception of its findings. The lack of any disciplinary action will likely be seen as a betrayal of public trust—especially given that those responsible for the failures appear to have already left their positions, evading accountability. Presumably, they kept their pensions? As they were not named and shamed will they be free to return as ‘consultants’?
Lest the reader think I am not familiar with the mechanisms of evasion and lack of accountability that manifest themselves within Guernsey’s civil service, I recall another senior civil servant who, after being caught in a finagle that enabled a developer to acquire my family’s property for peanuts, resigned—only to later return as a ‘consultant’ – apparently to advise over the same land parcels. I remember how the terms of reference for that review commissioned then carefully sidestepped the main thrust of that person’s wrongdoing. I remember who wrote them – and I remember the 27 revisions of the reviewer’s interpretation of my complaint as he sought to trivialise the wrongdoing by changing dates and other details. I remember the two subsequent ‘external’ reviews that were wholly evasive. I still await an explanation, some 14 years later. And that is not the only incident, is it Mr de Garis, Mr Whitfield, and Mr Brown?
Guernsey’s citizens expect their government to operate with integrity, transparency, and accountability. When those expectations are not met, the repercussions go beyond just one project—they affect the entire fabric of public confidence in governance.
The review’s findings suggest that the officers involved simply didn’t appreciate the gravity of their failures. This is precisely why stronger measures should have been recommended. Disciplinary actions, even if mild, would serve as a necessary corrective measure and a deterrent against future negligence.
A Missed Opportunity for Real Change
The review acknowledges the need for cultural change within the governance of public projects but fails to link this to any concrete actions. Cultural change requires more than just recommendations for better communication and clearer structures—it requires holding people accountable for their failures. By not doing so, the review misses a critical opportunity to set a new standard for behaviour and decision-making in Guernsey’s public sector.
In conclusion, while the review of the OHM project’s Phase 2 offers some valuable insights into systemic issues, one cannot help but feel that it ultimately falls short of delivering the accountability that is so desperately needed. The decision not to impose any disciplinary action appears to be not just lenient—but a disservice to the principles of good governance and public trust. If Guernsey is to avoid repeating these mistakes, a firmer stance on accountability is not just advisable—it is essential.
Timeline
It is seldom easy to disguise things against a chronology. So I extracted information from the table in the review and present it here, with notable excursions from the behaviour we pay for.
Impartiality
The review of the Our Hospital Modernisation (OHM) project, commissioned by the Head of Public Service and conducted by the former head of commercial law, who are also reportedly close friends, might raise concerns about independence. Whilst I am sure it is far from the case, the close connection between the commissioning authority and the reviewer could lead to questions about impartiality.
Despite the former head’s expertise, the public may question whether such a review can be fully objective. These potential concerns underscore the importance of transparency in the review process. Clear reasoning for the reviewer’s selection and strong, unbiased evidence are key to addressing any doubts. Even the slightest perception of bias should warrant the reviewer’s recusal.