seems so slow. Regulators do not have second chances. In industry you can make a mistake and it probably will not be in the news — not so in the public sector. Another area of difference is
the budgeting system. In industry, saving money and making a profit marks most managers as good managers, even in maintenance. In a regulatory environment your budget is provided so you can provide the service. Saving money in your budget generally means you must have done less inspections and audits, which counters why you received the budgeted money. This difference in objectives can cause misunderstanding in approaches when dealing with regulators.
DEALING WITH ISSUES When you discover you have an issue with the regulator, this is how you should respond. Carefully analyze the situation and set out your position on paper or its e-mail equivalent. Writing it down on paper usually helps to clarify the situation and enables you to determine your arguments. If you have a contact at the regulator, say a principal inspector, call him/her and advise them of your position. Start by telephone and keep a record of the time, date and content of the conversation. If it is apparent it won’t be resolved by voice contact, then follow up in writing. It’s a good practice to summarize each telephone call on paper and send it, including any action agreed upon, to the regulator. This forms a continuous record that can be very helpful if you proceed further. Review the issue again and make
sure you have all the facts. Then decide with whom in the regulatory structure you wish to address it. This is an important decision, as I will demonstrate later in this article. Normally the first level should be first, in most cases this is your
25
principal inspector. If you are not content with the inspector’s responses, then you can proceed up the chain of command. Sometimes citizens react by going to the most senior people first (i.e., minister or administrator). This is not always a successful strategy
and I will explain why in the next section. The general principle is that you give each level of supervision a chance to change the response or to confirm the initial response. This gives both sides a chance to discuss and some time to negotiate.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
