HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE
ON
HUMAN RESOURCES
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES OFFICE
Public Service Commission, re New Auditor General Hiring Process
and
Appointments to Agencies, Boards and Commissions
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Horne (Chairman)
Ms. Joyce Treen
Mr. Ben Jessome
Ms. Margaret Miller
Mr. Iain Rankin
Mr. Eddie Orrell
Ms. Karla MacFarlane
Hon. Maureen MacDonald
Hon. Denise Peterson-Rafuse
WITNESSES
Public Service Commission
Ms. Cynthia Yazbek
Executive Director, Employee Relations
Ms. Dale Rushton
Human Resources Director
In Attendance:
Ms. Kim Langille
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Bill Horne
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to thank everyone for coming here this morning. This is the official meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and today we have a presentation and witnesses. But before we get to that, I would like to introduce myself. I'm Bill Horne, the chairman of the Human Resources Committee, and I would like everyone else, if they wouldn't mind, to introduce themselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would like to proceed directly with a few comments - everybody should have their phones off, or at least on silent, and the exit is to the right, out here right outside.
We'll review the agenda - we have a witness for the Auditor General's hiring process; we have some correspondence; ABC appointments; and the summer meeting schedule.
I'd like to welcome you today and if you would like to introduce yourselves and proceed with your presentation.
MS. CYNTHIA YAZBEK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the committee. My name is Cynthia Yazbek. I am the executive director of Employee Relations for the Public Service Commission. Laura Lee Langley, our deputy and commissioner, is out of province. I'm acting on her behalf and I'm here on her behalf this morning. With me, I have my colleague, Dale Rushton, who is the director of Human Resources who serves with the Public Service Commission and is an employee of the Public Service Commission as well.
I will do my best this morning to answer all the questions of the committee and I think I will start by simply walking through the presentation to provide you with a fairly high-level overview of the hiring process for the Auditor General, to provide that context for the rest of our discussion and the questions this morning.
The hiring process began in November 2013. We retained Knightsbridge Robertson Surrette, which is an external recruitment firm, to conduct and lead our national search for the Auditor General. During December and then into January of this year, the position for Auditor General was advertised through a number of media. There was a national ad in The Globe and Mail, and there was also an advertisement placed on the websites of the CPA Source - the Chartered Professional Accountant Source - and Career Beacon, a job bank if you will, and also the website of Knightsbridge, our external recruitment firm.
Then flowing from that, during December through until February 2014, there were 20 applications received for the position of Auditor General. They were reviewed and screened by Knightsbridge, and using the - which I will get to in a few moments - technical competencies that were identified at the outset, and a number of selection criteria, the 20 applications were shortlisted to 12 applicants who were felt to meet the minimum qualifications for the role. One of those applicants subsequently withdrew from the competition, so there were 11 applicants at that point that were felt to be minimally qualified for the role.
During February and March of this year, an independent selection panel was formed, and I will run through the names in a moment, but they were representatives from various audit and accounting organizations from that industry. I would note there were five voting members and one non-voting member and, of the five voting members, four of the five did have a professional accounting designation. The members were Jennifer Nicholson from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nova Scotia; Beth Earle from Certified Management Accountants of Nova Scotia; Dr. Patricia Bradshaw who is the dean of Sobeys School of Business with Saint Mary's University; a former provincial auditor with Nova Scotia, Roy Salmon; Cassandra Dorrington who is the president of the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council; and the commissioner of the Public Service Commission, Laura Lee Langley, was on the independent panel as a non-voting member.
Once the independent panel was formed, the panel reviewed the candidate list and short list for candidates to be interviewed. I would note here that all 20 applications were reviewed by the independent selection panel. Even though Knightsbridge had done their review and shortlisting, the full candidate applications were all provided to the independent selection panel for review. Ultimately the panel, based on the criteria that were identified to select the Auditor General, shortlisted six candidates which they felt were appropriate to be interviewed. Those interviews took place on April 7-8, 2014.
As well, during April, references were checked on the candidates. So what happened was prior to the interviews the six candidates who were selected for interview, three references were checked for each of those candidates pre-interview and that information would have been shared. The references were done by Knightsbridge and the information would have been shared with the independent selection panel prior to the interviews.
Following the interview process, once the panel had concluded who their top candidate would be, two additional references were checked on the top candidate. I would note, as well, that credentials would have been checked as well as some client review feedback from the top candidate's former employer, the federal government, was also shared with the independent selection panel - so a total of five reference checks and the client feedback, as well as checking on the credentials of the candidate.
Ultimately, Michael Pickup was confirmed as the independent selection panel's top candidate for the role. It's a recommendation so, as you know, it is only a recommendation of the independent panel because the appointment has to be ultimately voted and approved by the House of Assembly, and this occurred on April 29th, so that recommendation as you know went to the House and the motion had been passed.
On my final slide, I just want to speak to the technical competencies and selection criteria which would have been identified through this process. Firstly we have the technical competency around a public accounting designation. It was a requirement that the candidates have professional public accounting, a CA, CMA or CGA designation, with an extensive audit background. A minimum of 15 years is what we were looking for, a proven senior level experience in a government setting - municipal, federal, provincial.
Because of the nature of the role of the Auditor General in that it is an independent office, it's not a role that reports to government, it reports to the House of Assembly and it's independent from government, also because the role is fundamental in maintaining transparency and the openness of both government and the Public Service, there were a number of other selection criteria which were identified as being extremely relevant and those were leadership, professional credibility, communication skills, open and transparent style, vision for the office, and commitment to public service. Those criteria were also identified and would have guided, if you will, the process and all of the candidates would have been assessed through this lens, the technical competencies and selection criteria.
That is a high-level overview for you and now I am happy to take any questions that you may have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, I think we're ready to take some questions. Who would like to - I'll make a list as people request to have a question. Mr. Orrell.
MR. EDDIE ORRELL: I just have a quick question. Thank you for your presentation, it's very clear. Just the one - how do you assess "open and transparent style" in a person?
MS. YAZBEK: That's a great question.
MR. ORRELL: And I know there's probably not a good answer to it, but if that's in there, there must be some kind of criteria they looked at.
MS. YAZBEK: Sure. The independent selection panel would have had set questions that they would have asked of all the candidates. In asking those questions, they would have been asking them to provide examples of experiences - work experiences that they would have had in the past, challenges that they would have had in the past and how they would have worked through those challenges.
I appreciate your question in terms of how you assess that, but I think you listen to a candidate, how they communicate and how they describe to you work challenges and experiences that they've had in the past and how they've dealt with those. In so doing, you can assess what was their style, how did they address those issues that were raised, how did they address problems, and from there make an assessment about how you think they would deal with similar kinds of scenarios that might come up through the AG's Office.
Also the reference checks, so that would be something that we would use. We would use the reference materials. I should say, as well, any assessment that the independent selection panel would do - it's comprehensive. It starts with their cover letter and their resumé and what they may have identified in those documents in terms of the criteria that were identified in the job posting, the interview process, the questions asked, and then references. Some of those things could be gleaned from the feedback from their references and prior employers in terms of their style and how they would have dealt with situations.
MR. ORRELL: I was just wondering how you would do that in an interview, that's all, if it was a set question that said yes or no. Anyway, that's not relevant. Great, thank you. I appreciate it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Miller.
MS. MARGARET MILLER: I have a few questions for you. Basically, most of them are just to set the record straight. Your presentation was wonderful, thank you so much. Very clear and concise, but I mean, this is a public record, as well, so I would just like to get some clarification here. The first thing is, did you find that there were any conflicts of interest during the hiring process?
MS. YAZBEK: No, we did not. What would have happened was the independent selection panel would have seen the full list of candidates and the question would have been posed as to whether or not there were any conflicts of interest. There were not.
MS. MILLER: Wonderful. May I continue, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may.
MS. MILLER: Who was responsible for selecting the search and recruitment firm?
MS. YAZBEK: The province has a standing offer list through our procurement processes. Essentially, there would be a number of individuals on that list or a number of companies and organizations that provide various services, one of which is executive recruitment. Those names are on the list through an application process, so individuals and companies have an opportunity to apply to be on the province's standing offer.
We went to the standing offer and selected four external recruitment firms, one of which was Knightsbridge, and asked those four firms to provide a proposal - so we asked for a request for proposal essentially around the Auditor General hiring process. Three of the four, in fact, provided proposals. Those were assessed based on criteria; the cost would have been one, obviously, but also the quality of the work and the scope of the work and what they would have been prepared to provide, and their track record. Ultimately, Knightsbridge was chosen.
MS. MILLER: All right, thank you. Also, who was responsible for drafting the job profile and the qualifications?
MS. YAZBEK: There would have been, I guess, a collaborative effort on that piece. Knightsbridge would have done some drafting in terms of the job profile and the qualifications in consultation with information that would have been provided. As an example, the legislation, as a starter, provides some clear guidance in terms of the expectation and the function of the role of the Office of the Auditor General. That would have been a helpful reference point.
As well, in government we have executive leadership competencies for our senior level positions, so that would have been another reference point that was provided to Knightsbridge. This is a very unique role, but certainly that would have been something they would have looked at in terms of the competencies that we expect of all of our senior leaders in government as a reference point as well.
They would have worked with information and would have done a draft, and that obviously would have been approved and confirmed by the province as well as saying this is in line with the expectations of that role.
MS. MILLER: And the responsibility of recruiting candidates - that would have been with Knightsbridge, as well, and the advertising?
MS. YAZBEK: Yes.
MS. MILLER: What about the initial screening of the candidates? That was all through Knightsbridge as well?
MS. YAZBEK: Yes. They would have done the initial screening, provided that information to the - they would have provided their feedback to the independent selection panel, but as I indicated in the presentation, they did provide the selection panel with all of the candidates for their information so they had some context and could understand how Knightsbridge actually came to their shortlist of 12, and then 11 after the one applicant withdrew.
MS. MILLER: The responsibility of the interviews was with the panel as well?
MS. YAZBEK: Absolutely.
MS. MILLER: Were there any candidates interviewed by the recommendation of any partisan or elected official?
MS. YAZBEK: Absolutely not.
MS. MILLER: Totally non-partisan?
MS. YAZBEK: Totally non-partisan.
MS. MILLER: Wonderful. With the exception of approving the Auditor General in the House of Assembly last Spring, when are elected officials brought into the interview process for the Auditor General?
MS. YAZBEK: They are not. It was an independent selection panel. It was a very thorough, objective, fair process - an independent selection panel that would have asked questions of all of the candidates, reviewed all of their information based on the same competencies and selection criteria and ultimately would have made their recommendation to the House of Assembly, at which point it would have become, I guess, a vote for all Parties.
MS. MILLER: My final question: who was responsible for recommending the final candidate to the House of Assembly?
MS. YAZBEK: Who specifically?
MS. MILLER: Yes, or would it be the selection group?
MS. YAZBEK: The independent selection panel. Michael Pickup was the top candidate of the selection panel and they would have brought that name forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have questions - none at all? We can go until about 10:35 a.m. Not hearing any more questions - did you want to ask another question? No, okay.
Well, thank you very much for coming today. Would you like to make any closing remarks?
MS. YAZBEK: No, just to say thank you very much for your attention and for your questions and for your time this morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think this is all a very good indication of how well the process works. We'll take a recess for a few minutes to set up for ABCs.
[9:17 a.m. The committee recessed.]
[9:21 a.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to call the meeting to order, thank you very much. I'd like to first review the agenda. The witnesses are done, we have correspondence, and then we'll do the ABC appointments.
Before we continue on, I would like to let you know that Mr. Orrell has passed out some information that he would like to discuss. Now I'll ask if anyone else has any other correspondence. Ms. MacFarlane.
MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: I would just like to bring up a topic that we discussed at our last meeting with some new discoveries and inconsistencies with appointments. I would like, if there's time, to could discuss that as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay, now we'll do the correspondence that we have. The first one is this letter here. You should all have the correspondence. It's to Ms. Langille and it's from Laura Lee Langley. Do you have any discussion on that letter? It is providing information that we requested. Is there sufficient information there to be satisfied?
Okay, the next letter is to myself from Janice Brown concerning the questions we had from the last meeting on May 6th. "The Form A and Board Profile indicated she was to receive" - this is Victoria Harnish - "$12,000 per year while the Guidelines document indicated she was to receive $3,600. The correct figure is $12,000." It goes on a little bit more to substantiate that. Are there any questions or concerns? Ms. MacFarlane.
MS. MACFARLANE: My question is, was it a misprint then or is it an increase?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a misprint.
MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions on that piece of information? Okay, we'll talk about Mr. Orrell's request.
MR. ORRELL: I had a gentleman in my office yesterday. His name is David Lewis. He's a member of the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing Commission from Nova Scotia. He actually lives in Sydney Mines.
Each Maritime Province has two representatives on the board. One of the representatives from Nova Scotia has expired - his term had expired as of June of last year and he didn't indicate he wanted to re-offer. They had someone who was looking to re-offer, put it towards the Maritime Harness Racing Commission board and hasn't heard anything back.
The situation it puts him in is if they have an emergency meeting and one of the gentlemen from Nova Scotia can't make it, the commission can't have a meeting because they need a representative from each of the provinces. The gentleman who is on the board now is a diabetic, who at any time could have a problem where he couldn't make an emergency meeting or couldn't make a meeting, which would mean that the business of the board would be delayed for an extended period of time, which may interfere with the operation of the board and the operation of the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing Commission.
The question is, is there a reason that they haven't reappointed someone to the board, or is it just that it takes time to do that? There is somebody interested, as the letter that I have passed out has said, and they would like an answer, if it will be done or if there's a problem or something has gone wrong with it. It could potentially interfere with the operations of the Maritime Provinces Harness Racing Commission. I guess that's my question, to see if we can get that answered and maybe speed up the process of putting a new person on the board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good, thanks for that information. We'll look into that and Ms. Langille will follow it through and hopefully have a response by next meeting.
MR. ORRELL: Great. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacFarlane.
MS. MACFARLANE: For those of you that were here at the last meeting, I believe you're aware that I brought up the inconsistency of the reappointment of Janet Hazelton. Once again, I want to make it clear for the record that this is nothing personal. I think Janet Hazelton is more than qualified for the position.
There is an issue with the process. We addressed it at the last meeting, where the old rules and regulations stated that it was a two-year term. She will be going into 12 years with this new appointment, so we agreed that we were going to look into it. I believe, Mr. Hebb, you said that changes were made, but they did not reflect what was still on the Internet and the information that was out there.
My concern is that I think the importance of doing due diligence, as well as just clearing my own conscience and having clarity, because with these changes - my understanding is that she was appointed under the old regulations, because if everything is now correct on the Internet, the last time that the Governance and Accountability For the Workplace Safety and Insurance System was revised was April 22nd.
I just got these last night, so I'm sorry I don't have copies, but I can certainly get them, or maybe . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can make copies.
MS. MACFARLANE: Whatever is fine. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that it was adopted on May 9, 2005, revised again in July 2009, revised again in 2012, and then again on April 22, 2014, after we had brought it to the attention back in March when she was appointed.
Once again, this is nothing about who was appointed. It's about the process that I'm deeply concerned about, because it is our names that are held accountable for this. I just want to know, am I missing something or not understanding something - because it definitely could be - or is there any clarification for me to better understand how this process works?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask Mr. Hebb if he would make a comment.
MR. GORDON HEBB: I don't know if there's anything - I mean, I can't remember who we were bringing the error to the attention of.
MS. KIM LANGILLE (Legislative Committee Clerk): A letter was written to the department.
MR. HEBB: And I don't know what has happened since we did that, but the site seemed to be clearly in error. I think what happened is that somebody had missed a change a long time ago, and then of course they wouldn't be looking, perhaps not reviewing the whole site but only the things that they thought subsequently changed. So having missed the error once, no one picked it up subsequently and it sat there for many years. But I don't know what has happened since the letter was sent from the committee to the department. I don't know if we've had a response or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll probably - we will follow this up and see if we can clarify it and have it to you for the next meeting.
MS. MACFARLANE: Mr. Hebb, I appreciate that. I think where I want clarity is, when was the actual meeting held, with whom, that decided that these changes were going to be made, because if you review it, you will see where one statement has been changed to accommodate the changes of the process of appointing? I'm just curious to know when these changes were actually made and by whom. That's just an inquiry and I appreciate every effort that's put forth just so that we here totally understand the process better. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there other correspondence? Not hearing anything, we will go on to the appointments. Ms. Treen.
MS. JOYCE TREEN: Under the Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage, I move that Mayann Francis, Sadira Jan, and Tara Larsen be appointed as governors of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Board of Governors.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MS. TREEN: Mr. Chairman, I move that Peter Dykhuis, Mhiran Faraday, and Don Sedgwick be appointed as members of the Arts Nova Scotia Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Mr. Jessome.
MR. BEN JESSOME: Under the Department of Community Services, I move that Lola Gilmer be appointed as a member of the Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. JESSOME: Under the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, I move that John Armstrong be appointed as director of the Nova Scotia Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. JESSOME: Under Service Nova Scotia, I move that Rany Ibrahim be appointed as a member of the Certified General Accountants Association of Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. JESSOME: Under the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, I move that Victoria Harnish be appointed as member and vice-chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Okay, we'll talk about the summer meetings. Ms. Treen.
MS. TREEN: I would like to put forward a motion that for the months of July and August we meet on Wednesdays, just because it's caucus day - instead of the out-of-town members coming in for another day - and also that we just do the ABCs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a favourable motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MS. LANGILLE: Oh, what time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be convenient for the afternoon? (Interruptions)
MR. ORRELL: Our caucus meets on Wednesdays in the summer, so it would have to be in the morning. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: So 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. - probably an hour just for ABCs? Just once a month; one for July and one for August - is there any particular interest in which Wednesday?
MS. LANGILLE: It's usually the last Wednesday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the last Wednesday.
MR. ORRELL: I just want to clarify - if something was to come up that was an emergency or something that required the attention of the committee, would we still be able to bring that to the attention of the committee? And instead of 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., say, have a 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon meeting if required?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If required, I think that would be fine. And I guess everyone is in favour of the last Wednesday, although we don't have a caucus meeting - do you have a caucus meeting that day? (Interruptions)
MS. LANGILLE: The issue becomes - everything is backdated, like from Executive Council and the departments, so if we move our date, then it crunches them up and then things aren't on time. It's best if we don't have to move it, especially when it's only a month away.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Finishing up the discussion, I would say we'll have it that day, the last Wednesday of July - the 24th.
MS. LANGILLE: That's June, actually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's June.
MS. TREEN: I just asked for July and August. I didn't ask for June.
MR. CHAIRMAN: June, and then we can look at the July and August final dates.
HON. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can change the committee to Wednesday in June because the Public Accounts Committee meets Wednesday in June. So we'll have to stick with what our prescribed time is for June, but for the summer months, it makes sense to do a short meeting at the end of the month.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To be clear, for July and August, we will meet on July 30th and August 27th - 10:00 a.m. at this point.
If there's nothing else, this meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:38 a.m.]
