Guardiola denies rift with De Bruyne during Man City's dramatic slump
Chargers QB Justin Herbert does not practice because of left ankle injuryIn August 2024, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) initiated the recruitment process through the lateral entry scheme by issuing a notification for the recruitment of 45 Joint Secretaries, Directors, and Deputy Secretaries as specialists in government departments. The initiative faced significant opposition from various groups, particularly political parties, which argued that the scheme compromised the reservation rights of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The strong opposition compelled the government to shelve the plan. This was not the first time that the Union Government has recruited specialists through the lateral entry scheme. In 2018, 63 specialists were appointed through lateral entry in various ministries. Currently, around 57 specialists are working with the government. Even then, recruitment through the lateral entry scheme was excluded from the reservation system. The decision to withdraw the notification has reignited the debate on the need for domain experts within the civil service and highlights the necessity of developing an appropriate approach to civil service reform. Need for domain experts It has long been recognised that specialised skills are much needed in the civil service. In fact, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005) recommended the need for lateral entry into the higher echelons of the government to bring in specialised knowledge and skills, though it did not specify a method of recruitment. The ongoing representation issues of SCs and STs within the civil service further complicate the narrative. Despite existing reservations, the number of SC and ST officers in higher positions remains low. SCs and STs constitute only around 4% and 4.9% of top bureaucratic positions in the Union government at the level of Deputy Secretaries, Directors, Joint Secretaries, and beyond. One reason is that the entry age of officers during the recruitment process is often higher than that of general category candidates, and these officers frequently retire before reaching the top positions. The lateral entry scheme is likely to further limit the representation of these marginalised communities, as the scheme is unlikely to attract domain experts from these communities due to their limited access to such positions in the private sector. For better or worse, the lateral entry debate has been politicised. With caste-based reservations being significant factors in elections, the government is unlikely to reignite this debate, as doing so could have substantial political repercussions. For now, the discussion around lateral entry appears to have reached an impasse. But there is no denying the reality that there is a need for domain experts in the public sector, as each sector is becoming specialised, requiring close collaboration with technical experts. Civil servants are generally generalists, not specialists. Lateral entry, with or without reservation as it existed, was essentially a short-term solution. The need is for domain experts within the civil service itself. It is these domain experts who would cultivate a resilient and effective civil service. To realise this objective, there is a need to develop long-term strategies that prioritise academic-industry-civil service collaboration, capacity building, and institutional development. Integrated model for domain expertise In order to effectively develop domain expertise within the civil service in India and address the ever more complex needs of governance, a collaborative framework that brings together civil service, academia, and industry is needed. This collaboration would facilitate the exchange of knowledge and best practices, allowing civil servants to engage with the latest developments in their respective fields and develop much-needed domain expertise. Civil servants with public sector experience and decision-making capabilities would imbibe insights from academia and industry about emerging trends, skills, and technologies. But this collaboration must differ from the current refresher and mid-career training offered to civil servants. These training programmes for civil servants often act as temporary fixes. Even though such programmes inculcate valuable skills, they fail to create a robust framework for domain expertise. Domain expertise, unlike training programmes, is not an isolated event but must be an integral part of a civil servant’s career trajectory. For domain expertise, an integrated model that aligns with individual career paths and areas of interest is essential. The critical components of an integrated model for developing domain expertise among civil servants include strategic planning, memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with institutions, a rigorous selection process, and specialised postings with fixed tenures. Strategic planning Domain expertise starts with the drafting of a strategic plan to create efficient public policy analysts within the civil service, with locus in the public sector and focus on skills and knowledge from the private sector/industry, facilitated by academia. The objective is to enhance the capacity of civil servants in terms of technical expertise and strategic vision to formulate and implement policies efficiently and effectively in specific sectors, contributing to good governance and improved public service delivery. Strategic planning represents a long-term vision for the civil service and requires identifying the number of sector-specific domain experts needed for better alignment of resources and priorities. Academic institutions must be involved in the strategic planning at the initial stages only. This integrated model has significant advantages for academic institutions as well, as they would receive fresh impetus and motivation to contribute richly to public service delivery. One critical aspect of domain expertise is staying focused on ever-changing innovations and technologies in industry and incorporating these into the public sector. Strategic planning would include an element of circular response planning, with feedback and adjustments continuously incorporated. This element promotes flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing circumstances. MoUs with institutions The second component of the integrated model for developing domain expertise is the framing of MoUs with institutions. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, along with other cadre-controlling ministries, will establish MoUs with premier institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Management, Indian Institutes of Technology, National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Indian Institute of Public Administration, and the top central universities based on the National Institutional Ranking Framework. This collaboration’s primary objective is to formulate tailored courses and training programmes laced with industry experience for transforming current mid-level and top-level officers into domain experts. To start with, each ministry of the Government of India could target developing around four to five domain experts in sector-specific areas over the next few years and ensure the smooth and steady infusion of specialised knowledge and skills into the civil service. The MoUs must ensure that these courses are not usual academic courses, but, specifically, domain expert skill courses. The institutions involved must necessarily engage industry experts for the long term and have their own collaboration with them. Selection process, specialised posting The third but critical component of developing domain experts within the civil service is the establishment of rigorous selection processes for specialised training programmes. This should be jointly done by the ministries concerned and the institutions concerned. Herein, consideration can be given for adequate representation of SCs, STs and OBCs for domain expertise. The selection process should involve submission of a Statement of Purpose (SoP) detailing their motivations for domain expertise and past experiences and interview process to assess a civil servant’s alignment and potential for a domain expertise programme. Through this selection process, and subsequent training, a pool of civil servants would be developed who are not only domain experts but also deeply invested in making a meaningful impact. The last component of the integrated model for domain expertise is specialised posting in their respective areas of expertise, much like the existing lateral entry framework, which appoints personnel based on ministry needs. There should be no transfer of the trained domain experts outside their specialised sector. This targeted approach would address the long-standing issue of “the right minds aren’t in the right places” by ensuring that individuals with the most relevant knowledge and skills are assigned to roles where they can make the greatest impact. Further, irrespective of their years left in the service, a fixed tenure system post training should be set up that allows all domain expert officers equal chances to reach senior roles and contribute richly. Transforming the civil service in India through the integrated model for domain expertise is necessary to strengthen governance and improve public service delivery by developing a resilient and responsive civil service. In today’s market-based economy, the role of government has shifted from being a service provider to that of a facilitator and regulator. Through a cadre of domain experts, the government can build institutional capacity, enabling civil servants to serve effectively as regulators, facilitators, and even service providers. The model also allows civil servants to step away from the daily grind of government machinery to focus on skill development and specialisation. From a psychological perspective, this break from the routine can significantly reduce monotony, re-energising civil servants and enhancing their motivation. By engaging in capacity-building programmes, civil servants can rejuvenate their professional drive, thereby avoiding the “deadwood” effect that often arises in a prolonged career within the government sector. Zubair Nazeer is an Assistant Professor (Public Administration) at the Amar Singh College, Cluster University, Srinagar. He was previously a faculty member at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal Published - November 24, 2024 04:40 am IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit civil and public service / public officials / government / political parties / Reservation / government departments / election / industrial production / universities and colleges / technology (general) / ministers (government) / scientific institutions / management institutes / economy (general)
Pat King, one of the most prominent figures of the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, has been found guilty on five counts including mischief and disobeying a court order. A judge in an Ottawa courtroom Friday said the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that King was guilty on one count each of mischief, counselling others to commit mischief and counselling others to obstruct police. He was also found guilty of two counts of disobeying a court order. The Alberta resident was found not guilty on three counts of intimidation and one count of obstructing police himself. King could be facing up to 10 years in prison. The sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin on Jan. 16. The Crown is seeking “significant” incarceration time in a penitentiary while the defence wants King to be sentenced to time served and a period of probation. King’s attorney Natasha Calvinho said right now she is focused on the sentencing hearing and will determine if any other action, such as an appeal, will be pursued at a later date. Calvinho said she and her client are disappointed with the ruling, but she said it was well reasoned. “I think what the more important takeaway here, and what we’ve been saying from the very beginning, Mr. King was acquitted of all charges related to inciting any form of violence, specifically intimidation of Ottawa residents,” Calvinho said outside the courthouse. “So yes, he was convicted, a couple counts of mischief for his social media posts, as the judge found, and will continue to fight another day.” The maximum sentence for mischief in this instance is 10 years. In January 2022 the convoy attracted thousands of demonstrators to Parliament Hill in protest against public-health restrictions, COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the federal government. The event gridlocked downtown streets around Parliament Hill, with area residents complaining about the fumes from diesel engines running non-stop, and unrelenting noise from constant honking of horns and music parties. The federal Liberal government ultimately invoked the Emergencies Act to try and bring an end to the protests, which had expanded to also block several border crossings into the United States. Ottawa Police brought in hundreds of officers from police forces across Canada to force the protest to an end. King’s defence argued that King was peacefully protesting during the three-week demonstration and was not a leader of it. But the Crown alleged he was a protest leader who was instrumental to the disruption the protest caused the city and people who lived and worked nearby. The Crown alleged King co-ordinated the honking, ordering protesters to lay on the horn every 30 minutes for 10 minutes at a time and told people to “hold the line” when he was aware police and the city had asked the protesters to leave. The Crown’s case relied mainly on King’s own videos, which he posted to social media throughout the protest to document the demonstration and communicate with protesters. The court proceedings paused for about 10 minutes when King requested a short “health break” after the first verdicts on the mischief charges were read. Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland described the honking as “malicious conduct” intended to disrupt residents, workers, businesses and others from lawfully enjoying downtown Ottawa. Hackland also said that the videos show King was seen as and accepted the leadership role. He pointed to a quote from King, finding it “hilarious” that residents could not sleep for 10 days as “gleefully” aiding and abetting mischief. This evidence also played a role in determining King’s guilt in disobeying a court order and counselling others to do the same. These charges relate to the original Feb. 7, 2022 injunction against using air and train horns in downtown Ottawa which was launched by residents. The city successfully filed a similar injunction days later. As for counselling others to obstruct police, Hackland found King’s call to “hold the line” was telling people not to move from the protest site despite police orders. The judge said that phrase can be seen as a greeting between supporters of the convoy protest, but said there was no other logical interpretation in the context of King’s videos. In the days before a multi-day police removal operation began, King called on people to link arms and sit down with their backs to police if officers tried to move them. On the intimidation charges, Hackland said that a consistent theme of King’s videos were calls to remain peaceful and non-violent. He said that the target was always the federal government and COVID-19 policies, and specific individuals were not targeted by or through King’s actions. As for an intimidation charge related to blocking highways, Hackland said that finding guilt in this instance would be an “overly broad” interpretation of the Criminal Code as the blockade was done as part of a political protest, which is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His trial was heard over several weeks between May and July. King still has charges of perjury and obstruction of justice that need to be dealt with which is a separate matter stemming from an April 2022 bail review hearing. Details of the testimony that led to the charges are protected under a publication ban, which exists for all information that arises during a bail hearing.NoneShould You Add This Growth Stock to Your Cart for 2025?
The decision of FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign from his position two years before his 10-year term ended didn’t exactly get him hosannas on social media. “I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Wray told FBI staffers. “In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.” The resignation opens the door for President-elect Donald Trump ’s preferred nominee, Kash Patel , without having to fire Wray. Trump appointed Wray to the FBI Director position in 2017 after he fired James Comey, but hasn’t been too happy with him since the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 and uncovered troves of classified documents that led to federal criminal charges against Trump. Although Wray probably wants his departure to be seen as a statesman-like decision, it wasn’t seen that way on social media. Instead, he was criticized for engaging in “anticipatory obedience” by f ormer Obama administration ethics czar Norm Eisen, who thought Wray had a duty to the country to “constantly push back” and make Trump fire him. I admire how Chris Wray has hung in there—but he should’ve made Trump fire him Anticipatory obedience is not how we will save democracy Instead you must constantly push back 1/2 pic.twitter.com/3Y8FkGXkjN Other people also called out Wray for succumbing to the pressure. FBI director Christopher Wray just bent the knee and resigned. Most likely, Kash Patel will take his place. I talk to @glennkirschner about how Trump will weaponize the DOJ to attack Americans & dismantle democracy. Scary, sobering shit, but there is hope.... pic.twitter.com/OPJPNiORdC A profile in courage, Chris Wray is not. Wray bowed to political pressure; his early resignation is the easy way out. It avoids a very public conversation when Trump inevitably would have fired him for putting the law and the Constitution ahead of his loyalty to Trump. Wray’s resignation has resulted from raw political pressure that is repugnant to our justice system. It vastly heightens the hazards of weaponizing the FBI for political or personal ends—which should be an anathema to all my colleagues, regardless of party, https://t.co/iPJtwi8Wtg This is an unbelievable abdication by Wray and makes it so much easier for Trump to install a corrupt leadership under Kash Patel and weaponize the FBI. Wray is doing a huge disservice to the FBI past, present, and future. Wray is making a mistake. Wray hasn't done anything worthy of getting fired by Trump and should've made him do it Trump on the resignation of FBI Director Christopher Wray: “I just don’t know what happened to him.” Translation: “I appointed him thinking he’d do whatever I told him. To my surprise, he chose to follow the law instead.” pic.twitter.com/uF4iJALV4f Christopher Wray just announced his dutiful 'Obey in Advance' resignation. Nothing but cowards and quislings all the way down. Don't let this be the end of the free press. The free press is under attack — and America's future hangs in the balance. As other newsrooms bow to political pressure, HuffPost is not backing down. Would you help us keep our news free for all? We can't do it without you. Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read. You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again . We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you. Whether you give once or many more times, we appreciate your contribution to keeping our journalism free for all. You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again . We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you. Whether you give just one more time or sign up again to contribute regularly, we appreciate you playing a part in keeping our journalism free for all. Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) spoke out against Wray’s resignation Wednesday on MSNBC . You can see the segment below. Related From Our PartnerBrowns get 497-yard performance from QB Jameis Winston and lose anyway in season long gone sour
Bangkit (BKIT): AI Created Memecoin With A Real-Life Story, Now Trading On BitmartThousands rally after Georgian PM vows 'no negotiations' with pro-EU opposition