Ngiraingas said...Ngirkelau’s so called termination was pre-mature and improper because he did not approve the performance rating of Bureau of Public Works Director Techur Rengulbai. A document revealed that Rengulbai reviewed Ngirkelau’s performance and gave him an unsatisfactory rating. Ngiraingas said he did not approve the performance rating because there was no document attached that would explain why Ngirkelau’s performance was unsatisfactory.
Attorney General Ernestine Rengiil wrote a letter to Ngiraingas on June 30 and stated that Ngirkelau’s performance evaluation will prove that he did not successfully complete his initial probation period and may not be converted to permanent appointment status. The AG in her letter stated that Ngirkelau’s employment officially ended on February 19 and if the Ministry requires the services of Ngirkelau in a different position, he needs to apply for the position...He added that he also wrote a letter to Vice President Kerai Mariur who is also the Minister of Finance to correct Ngirkelau’s status. Here.
It's VP Mariur's call now. And of course, he knows very well that Ngiraingas delivered big time during the election.
This is going to be an interesting battle between Minister Ngiraingas and AG Rengiil. One is the type of person who is very assertive and at times even irrational in his reasonings versus a rather quiet and unassuming legally minded person. I think the question is whether the minister approves all of the performance ratings for all of the employees under his department or is this only for this particular individual. Maybe AG Rengiil should find out if there are any inconsistencies within Ngiraingas' department regarding the approval process for job performance evaluation. I thought job performance evaluations are conducted by the employee's immediate supervisor. While we all await VP Marur's action or decision regarding this controversy, it would be very interesting to know if politics would overwhelm common sense and legal procedures....and the beat goes on.....
Posted by: bekai | August 10, 2009 at 03:47 PM
The government evaluation process should be honored as submitted by appropriate individuals designated the authory to assess and evaluate the performance of government employees. It is a uniform process done within all government agencies. Mr. Rengulbai's evaluation on Mr. Ngirkelau's performance is just and as observed. A position such as safety officer have a different job description and requirement. If according to Mr. Rengulbai's evaluation, Mr. Ngirkelau did not perform well within these or meet the requirements, then it is only right for Mr. Rengulbai to do what he did. If he lies about the evaluation, then he is incompetent and should be held liable for removal or demotion from his position. The first 3 months after one gets the job is considered a "delicate period". During which time, an employee must prove himself to be competent, trustworthy and a right person for the job.
Mr.Ngiraingas should be reprimanded, as he stepped in without first consulting with Mr. Rengulbai. He used his authority to supersede the true and fair decision made by appropriate person, simply to try and retain an employee who is not fit for the job. An employee who is a waste of government resources.
We have seen good people go in and get out simply because they fail to meet the requirements at the end of their trial periods. Does not make Mr. Ngirkelau a special person, as government is always trying to be fair. I would have given Mr. Ngirkelau the same perfomance evaluation if I saw and observed what Mr. Rengulbai did. The best thing now is for Mr. Ngiraingas to step down and relax and let the system work. Mr. Ngirkelau should bring his issue to the board, but he must have good explanation as to why his perfomance evaluation was rated "unsatisfactory". If he is able to convince the board that Mr. Rengulbai was wrong, then it is Mr. Rengulbai and the board.
I have seen Mr. Ngrkelau on numerous occassions in a government vehicle at a very strange place which I believe is not connected to his job. Mr. Rengulbai have probably seen him more, to include his daily performance in the office.
What do you all think?
p.s-If he stays its still good, and if he goes, he will leave a vacancy...
Cheuas
Posted by: Cheuas | August 10, 2009 at 08:46 PM
I agree with you Cheuas. The minister should let Mr. Rengulbai do his work, and not step on his toes. Although he is the minister, he should not overstep his bounds.
I guess this is when the adage works, "It's not what you know, it is who you know" kind of deal. You can screw around on government time because you know someone who will reinstate you back if you get caught.
Posted by: No way | August 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM