« Koror streets lights up | Main | Notary Public removed from office »

August 10, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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.....

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...


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    October 2009

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30 31