|
Message from the President
Selection Standards and the Professionalism of the FI Group
Over the last few months, members have raised concerns about the Association's position on the issues of the mis-classification of financial positions, the status of incumbents in these positions and the future of the selection standards for the FI community. Also, we have heard from several sources that the Association is being portrayed as a "troublemaker" in this situation, and that we are sending mixed signals to our membership and the employer. I am writing this message today to make our position clear, and to refute these rumours.
 Fifteen years have passed since the introduction of the current FI Selection Standard. The main objective of this selection standard was clear; the Financial Management Community was to become a group of highly qualified professionals, and be recognized as such. More than sufficient time has passed for this objective to have been achieved.
In a June 25th, 2002 speech, the Clerk of the Privy Council made clear his expectations for accountability by saying:
"Accountability is a good thing. We don't duck it. We're proud of it, it's part of public service, it's part of what gives us pride. So this is a time to turn back to accountability as a positive force for democracy, as way of building trust. And accountability is not about blame."
It is time for the Comptroller General of Canada and the Senior Financial Officers to realize that they have accountability in regards to the management of the financial community, and that they must demonstrate leadership in ensuring financial positions are properly classified, the selection standard is adhered to and concrete solutions are found for incumbents who do not immediately meet the standard.
It has been the Association's position from the beginning that if the position includes financial duties which fall within the FI group definition, the employer must place the job in the FI bargaining unit immediately. Leaving the job improperly classified is not a solution. The standard must be adhered to. While we recognize that the Financial Administration Act (FAA) and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) gives the employer full control over classification and staffing, and prohibits negotiation in these areas, this places an even higher onus on the employer to describe duties accurately and classify positions properly.
 It is important to remember the history of this issue. In the past, the Association was required to file numerous applications before the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) to challenge a number of departments regarding the staffing of positions performing financial duties before Treasury Board and the office of the Comptroller General finally recognized that the problem "may be systemic" and widespread. Once having clearly identified that a position had been mis-classified, in many cases to circumvent the standard, the Employer was unable to provide any solution(s) to address the problem of dealing with incumbents who did not meet the standard. This is a management issue which has been poorly addressed to-date. It is obviously a delicate balance for the Association in dealing with incumbents who do not meet, as these individuals are placed in this position through no fault of their own, and their employment continuity must be guaranteed.
Most recently, the Association discovered that Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), a department which supposedly understood this issue and had cleaned-up its mis-classification "problems", posted two positions for competition. The positions, titled Manager, Resource Management and Chief, Financial Management respectively, were classified at the AS-07 group and level. Once this situation was brought to the attention of the employer by the Association, the staffing actions were halted and the positions are currently under review. Clearly, the Employer and Departments, through abuse of their delegated classification authorities, continue to classify positions for reasons other than the qualifications required and the work to be performed. This circumvention of the selection standards to suit the qualifications of individuals undermines the professionalism of the financial management community.
Now that the problem has been identified, the time has come to find long-term solutions. Changing the selection standards to eliminate the high educational requirements would erode the professionalism of the group. This would be a regressive step which would be vehemently opposed by the Association, and would not be accepted by the Canadian public we serve. Rather, the employer must recommit to the objectives set out in the 1987 selection standards and create transition rules to address and solve the problems they have created. As a long-term solution to this problem, and to ensure the highest levels of professionalism for the group, the Association suggests the following:
- That all positions where the duties fall within the FI group definition be classified as FI immediately;
- That employees who are not currently FIs, who occupy a FI position and do not meet the selection standard, will be grand-fathered for that position only and will not be entitled to deployments, promotions or reclassifications until such time as they meet the selection standard;
- That the current selection standards be revised to remove all but the highest requirements;
- That all new appointments for employees not currently in the FI Group meet the revised selection standard without exception; and
- That employees that are currently classified as FIs and do not meet the revised selection standard continue to be grand-fathered and criteria be established for the combination of education and experience required for promotion.
I am hoping that these suggestions will encourage the employer to commit to respecting the professional qualifications needed to become a Financial Officer, and provide members and managers with clear direction and assurance that appropriate recognition and compensation will be afforded to financial officers.
|
