Observations on Promotion Cases

Promotion in the Civil Service is premised on the principle of meritocracy and suitability. Character, ability, experience and together with any necessary qualification if required provide the basis on which an officer is assessed for suitability to assume the responsibility of the higher rank duties. Promotion has to be earned: it is not an entitlement nor a reward for long service, but a recognition that the selected officer is able and ready to perform the more demanding duties in a higher rank. The Commission assists the Government to ensure that only the most deserving officers with demonstrable ability and potential and are suitable in all respects are promoted. Needless to say, the selection process has to be conducted properly and objectively and that the fair claims of all eligible officers are duly and fully considered.

In 2019, the Commission continued to examine recommendations for promotion critically and meticulously. We have to be critical and meticulous in ensuring that promotion exercises are conducted properly and are in full compliance with the CSRs and the rules and procedures governing them. The Commission is pleased to note the continued maintenance of a high level of compliance in 2019. In some cases, however, there was scope for further improvement. While specific observations and comments had been conveyed to the B/Ds concerned, we have chosen some noteworthy cases to illustrate and serve as a reminder for B/Ds.

To realise the potential of capable and suitable officers to take up higher responsibilities in the delivery of services to the community, B/Ds should make the maximum use of available vacancies to promote deserving officers at the earliest possible opportunity. Paragraphs 3.5(a) and 3.42 of the Guidebook on Appointments set out the general principle and method in determining the number of promotable and acting vacancies in a promotion exercise as well as the effective date of promotion. Vacancies that are expected to arise within the current reporting cycle should be counted as promotable vacancies. Other than vacancies occurring in the current reporting cycle, B/Ds should also ascertain the number of vacancies which are expected to arise in the first six months of the next reporting cycle so that filling them (e.g. by long-term acting for administrative convenience (AFAC)¹⁵ or short-term acting appointment) could be planned ahead. Supernumerary or time-limited posts should also be counted as promotable vacancies if sufficient permanent vacancies will become available to absorb the promotees before the lapse of the supernumerary or time-limited post concerned.

During the year, the Commission has noted in a number of cases that the general provision governing the counting of available vacancies had been too narrowly interpreted. There was also some confusion in determining appropriately the effective date of promotion. In two promotion exercises conducted by a department, the promotion boards recommended the filling of consequential vacancies¹⁶ in the lower rank only after the corresponding vacancies in the next higher rank had been substantively filled. However, the boards had overlooked the principle that vacancies should be calculated realistically on a grade rather than a rank specific basis, and that the consequential vacancies in the lower rank can be counted unless there is a genuine risk of over-establishment. If the boards’ aforesaid recommendations were implemented, the recommended officers would have to be kept waiting unnecessarily and their promotions consequently deferred. In another case, while awaiting the formal advice of the Commission and in order to meet urgent operational needs, the department decided to put up an officer recommended for promotion for acting in an existing vacancy. The officer could not however be released at the time. Instead of recommending the officer’s promotion to take effect from the date the officer took up the duties of the higher office, the board had mistakenly recommended that the board date be used as the effective date for promotion. If the department had followed closely the stipulated rule on determining the effective date of promotion¹⁷, much time would have been saved by the Commission Secretariat in seeking the details of the acting appointment and resolving the matter. The Commission has asked the departments concerned to remind subject officers to fully familiarize themselves with the policy and rules governing the conduct of promotion exercises in future.

In another exercise, the Commission noted that a department had not included two vacancies which were promotable. The department explained that they were reserved for two recommended officers who were involved in some on-going investigations. The department had arranged other officers to fill the vacancies by temporary acting arrangements to meet operational needs. In the course of examination, the Commission noted that the AA had already decided not to effect the promotion board’s recommendations on these two officers. Thus, reserving the two vacancies was neither necessary nor appropriate. Besides, there were officers on the AFAC waiting list available and could be arranged to fill the two vacancies without the need to resort to temporary acting arrangements. The Commission has therefore advised the department to review the arrangement and to consult CSB in case of doubt.

Promotion boards should normally be held within six months from the end-date of the last appraisal cycle. B/Ds should submit promotion board reports to the Commission for advice within two months after the board meeting. Late conduct of promotion boards and late submission of promotion board reports were not conducive to maximising staffing resources for the operations of B/Ds. It will also affect B/Ds’ manpower development plans and posting arrangements for officers identified as fit for promotion.

While the number of promotion boards convened late had increased from three in 2018 to six in 2019, the number remained small, reflecting general adherence by B/Ds. These six boards were convened in the seventh to ninth month after the end-date of the last reporting cycle. Setting aside a special case of sudden emergence of a vacancy arising from unforeseen circumstances, the delay for the other cases was mainly due to the time required to await the availability of all board members or to settle staff complaint/disagreement on appraisal assessment. The Commission considers that time delays could be minimised if the departments had planned well ahead or started the preparation work for promotion exercises earlier. The concerned departments have been so advised for improvement in future.

In 2019, we are glad to note that the number of board reports that could not be submitted to the Commission for advice within two months had decreased from 62 (or 9% out of a total of 724) in 2018 to 45 (or 6% of 715) in 2019. Among them, nearly half were submitted late for more than a month. In the case of one department, the incidence of late submission had occurred consecutively over the past three years. The department attributed the delay to competing priorities and clustering of promotion, recruitment and FE exercises. The Commission appreciates the workload and heavy commitments of B/Ds. Nonetheless, late submissions remain an area of concern. Some of the B/Ds had undertaken to stagger future promotion exercises or reinforce the executive support to cope with the increasing workload. We look forward to improvement in the coming year.

When preparing for and conducting promotion exercises, it will always be useful to look up the comments and observations the Commission tendered in the previous exercises. In one case, a department failed to convene a promotion board timely despite the emergence of a promotable vacancy left unfilled by the last board. Noting the unfilled vacancy at the last exercise, the Commission had advised the department to take note and convene a promotion board to fill the vacancy timely. In the meantime, the GM had arranged an officer to act up in the vacancy to meet operational needs as an interim measure. The promotion board subsequently held recommended another officer for substantive promotion with effect from the board date. However, as this recommended officer was still holding a substantive rank post on the board date, the board had to revise the effective date of promotion to a later date when the officer took up the higher rank duties. Had the department referred back to the Commission’s advice tendered for the last exercise and conducted the 2019 board before the emergence of the vacancy, the unfilled vacancy from the preceding board would have been filled substantively earlier through a proper selection process.

The key task of a promotion board is to make fair assessment on the claims for advancement of all eligible candidates. The board should deliberate on a candidate’s suitability mainly with reference to the officer’s performance appraisals over a period of time, which can be supplemented by the personal knowledge of the promotion board members as necessary. A promotion board should select an officer on the basis of character, ability, any qualifications prescribed for the promotion rank, experience, and any other criteria that are relevant to the effective and efficient performance of the duties of the promotion rank. In addition to performance, an officer’s personal integrity and conduct are also key determinants for promotion. A promotion board is thus required to scrutinize the disciplinary records of all candidates to ascertain whether any of them are debarred from promotion or acting appointment. For candidates who are involved in on-going criminal or disciplinary investigations, the promotion board is not apprised of such information in order not to prejudice the claim of such officers. The AA however is vested with the power and authority to take account of all relevant factors, including the latest position of any on-going criminal/disciplinary actions, before approving the recommendations of the promotion boards. According to CSR 100(20), the final decision on which candidates should be promoted rests firmly with the AA who may decide whether to accept all the recommendations of a promotion board, or to vary or reject a particular one.

In examining the submissions on promotions in the year, the Commission noted that there were instances of a lack of full understanding of the respective roles of a promotion board and the AA in considering the promotion claims of candidates involved in on-going disciplinary investigations. In one case, the promotion board was informed of a disciplinary investigation being taken against a candidate for negligence of duty that took place after the board meeting. The board revisited its original recommendation on the candidate’s promotion upon conclusion of the disciplinary investigation. In view of the findings of the investigation and after balancing all relevant factors, the board decided not to recommend the officer for substantive promotion. While the Commission considered the board’s recommendation in order after scrutiny, the information about the disciplinary investigation should not have been disclosed to the promotion board. It is the role of the AA to consider and make the ultimate decision on whether the recommendations of the promotion board should be approved, varied or rejected.

In another case, the AA had originally supported a promotion recommendation in respect of a recommendee who was involved in an on-going investigation. However, in the absence of the AA’s detailed considerations and assessment on the possible integrity risk involved, the Commission was unable to support the recommendation. Upon review by the AA, the officer’s promotion was withheld pending the conclusion of the investigation. There was another case in which the AA had originally supported the waitlisted AFAC appointment of an officer who was bound over for committing a minor criminal offence and issued with a verbal advice. Although verbal advice carries no debarring effect for appointment, having re-assessed the officer’s integrity as revealed by the case at the Commission Secretariat’s request, the AA finally decided to remove the officer from the waiting list for further observation. The Commission considered that in both cases, the AAs should have set a higher standard on a candidate’s conduct and personal discipline when considering an officer’s claim for promotion especially for ranks of managerial position. Only by upholding a high standard of conduct and discipline among all civil servants will the integrity of the Civil Service be sustained. The Commission has reminded the concerned departments to follow closely the CSB’s guidelines in handling similar cases in the future.

According to paragraph 3.21 of the Guidebook on Appointments, where the pool of eligible candidates is large, a promotion board may devise shortlisting criteria relevant to the performance of duties in the promotion rank, such that the number of candidates to be considered could be reduced to a more manageable size. Such shortlisting criteria, however, should not debar the board from considering exceptionally meritorious candidates who meet the eligibility criteria but not the shortlisting criteria. The Commission has long advocated that B/Ds should be more critical in devising shortlisting criteria in promotion exercises. While consistency in the adoption of shortlisting criteria was important, they should not be considered and adopted mechanically without regard to the prevailing vacancy position, the pool of candidates and the practical effect of the criteria if adopted.

During the year, the Commission has found some boards to have continued with past practices adopted by previous boards in setting shortlisting criteria with insufficient regard to changed circumstances. We have selected three cases to illustrate why a different approach is warranted and more desirable to cater for new circumstances and changing needs. In the first case, the promotion board, after considering the Commission’s advice tendered in the previous exercise, decided to relax the shortlisting criterion to enlarge the pool of eligible candidates by reducing the in-rank experience requirement by two years. The number of candidates shortlisted under the new shortlisting criterion was 16 and the number of vacancies to be filled in the exercise was eight. With just 55 candidates eligible for consideration, the board should have considered relaxing the shortlisting criterion to a greater extent or even doing away with the shortlisting criterion altogether so that more candidates could be shortlisted for detailed examination. A larger pool of candidates would also allow for a healthy and reasonable competition among all eligible candidates. The Commission had urged the department to remind future boards to critically consider the appropriateness of adopting a shortlisting criterion with due regard to the vacancy position and size of the pool of candidates. In the second case, the promotion board decided to examine in detail 25 candidates to fill nine promotable vacancies. Of these 25 candidates, ten officers fell short of the service shortlisting criterion the board had adopted and would have been screened out had it not for their exceptional merits. Given the shortlisting result, it should have struck the board that the adoption of the previously used criterion was inadequate and adopting it again would not serve any meaningful purpose. In the view of the Commission, the board should have dispensed with the shortlisting criterion and enlarge the pool of eligible candidates. In the third case, the promotion board was presented with 320 eligible officers to consider. The board decided to include all for detailed examination without adopting any shortlisting criterion. With such a large pool of candidates, the board could have considered adopting an objective criterion, e.g. in-rank experience, to reduce the pool to a more manageable size thereby enhancing efficiency. As a requirement, a promotion board has to record the deliberations, assessments and recommendations of the board on every considered candidate. That it took the board 4.5 months to complete and submit the board report to the Commission for advice could have been attributed, albeit partly, to the large number of candidates involved. The Commission has advised the departments concerned to review the appropriateness of the previously adopted shortlisting criteria and seek advice from CSB if necessary.

Although not specified as a requirement, a well-established principle has been that the recommendations of the last promotion board on AFAC appointments should be given an appropriate weight. While promotion boards are expected to review such acting appointments afresh with a new round of appraisals, officers who have been acting would normally have a higher claim for promotion and their performance is reviewed ahead of other eligible officers in the same exercise.

The Commission noted that promotion boards have generally followed this principle in making recommendations for promotions, AWAV and AFAC appointments. In the case illustrated below, the concerned promotion board has stepped out of line. In that exercise, the promotion board recommended 19 officers to AWAV with effect from a common current date. Among them, six were officers already acting pursuant to the recommendations of the last board. The remaining 13 officers were newly recommended. Although the board had duly assessed the performance of all 19 recommendees and was satisfied that except for a few aspects requiring further observations, they were suitable in nearly all respects for immediate promotion. Recommending them for AWAV appointment was thus appropriate. The Board has not however accorded due weight to the six officers who had been acting on the last board’s recommendation. Upon the Commission’s request, the Board revisited and finally recommended the six acting officers to AWAV for six months with effect from a common current date, whereas the AWAV appointment of the remaining 13 officers would take effect from a later common date when all the promotable vacancies became available. The Commission has advised the department to brief future boards on the rationale and guiding principles in this regard.

According to CSR 166(2), acting appointments should be made only when it is necessary and justified to try out the performance of an officer in a higher rank such that his/her performance may be observed for the purpose of assessing his/her suitability for substantive promotion; or to appoint an officer to perform in the capacity of an office and undertake its duties and responsibilities in the temporary absence of a substantive holder to meet management or operational needs. It is important for promotion boards to differentiate the distinctive purposes and functions of the two types of acting appointments. In the year, a promotion board recommended to waitlist an officer for AFAC in an anticipated vacancy despite knowing the officer’s imminent retirement and that it had identified a sufficient number of suitable officers to fill all vacancies in the exercise. The recommendation if implemented not only hindered the succession of the grade, continuity of the operation of the office would also be undermined. The board having reviewed its recommendation at the Commission’s request, accepted the need to step up succession management at the concerned promotion rank and removed the retiring candidate from the AFAC waiting list. The Commission has advised the department to remind future promotion boards to consider the claims of eligible candidates in totality and all relevant factors should be taken into account in making recommendations.

While AFAC recommendees should be duly ranked in order of priority with justifications if there are insufficient vacancies or the vacancies will emerge over a period of time, the Commission has observed in some cases that the board’s effort of prioritisation could have been saved. A promotion board, after diligently compared the relative merits of 19 candidates, decided to recommend them to fill eight existing vacancies and 11 anticipated vacancies arising within a period of two months in order of priority. By the time the Board submitted its report to the Commission for advice, all the vacancies had become available to accommodate all 19 officers. The laborious efforts and time undertaken by the board to justify the recommended priorities though laudable would seem to be unnecessary.

As a measure of encouragement, the Commission will give recognition to B/Ds for good work done and commend them for their notable achievements. During the year, the Commission was pleased to note a good example of how comparison of merits of close contenders should be done when examining the recommendations of a promotion exercise. In the board report submitted, the basis and emphasis adopted by the promotion board in comparing the claims of the close contenders were clearly explained. Furthermore, evaluative information on the candidates’ ability, experience, character and attributes were provided as justifications of the board’s recommendations. Apart from assessing the candidates’ capability to perform well at the promotion rank, the board also carefully deliberated their long-term potential for further advancement. The Commission considers the work of the board a truly excellent example for other promotion boards to follow, and has commended the board including the board secretary for the work so well done.

In comparison, some common inadequacies and pitfalls were found in other submissions during the year. To cite a few examples, the summaries of performance as required to be provided in the candidates’ individual assessment forms tended to be too brief while others are a lengthy recap copied direct from the appraisal reports. In one board report, a different format was used to provide the summaries of performance on non-recommended candidates. To facilitate fair assessment on all eligible candidates, the same format of performance summaries should be used. In another case, the performance summaries of certain eligible officers were found to have omitted the areas requiring improvement as recorded in their appraisal reports. While it is not necessary to copy word-for-word the assessment from the appraisal reports, B/Ds should ensure that both the strengths and weaknesses as portrayed in the appraisal reports should be faithfully provided in the performance summaries. The Commission has advised the concerned B/Ds to take note and make improvement in future.

In two promotion cases, the Commission observed that some long-expired disciplinary records were still included in the candidates’ individual assessment form. In both cases, it was stated clearly in the individual assessment that the debarring effect had lapsed. Accordingly, the boards had not given any regard to such information and the candidates concerned were considered without any prejudice. The Commission was also satisfied with the impartiality of the promotion boards. The Commission considers the inclusion of expired disciplinary records unnecessary. While the concerned departments had already ceased/advised to cease the practice of including expired disciplinary records in individual assessment, the Commission has invited CSB to consider clarifying the relevant guidelines governing the provision of candidates’ disciplinary records in promotion exercises at an opportune time.

In accordance with paragraph 3.16 of the Guidebook on Appointments, if a board chairman or member declares that there may be a conflict of interest in assessing the claim of an eligible candidate, the AA should, after taking into account the degree of closeness of the relationship involved and the associated real/perceived conflict of interest, determine whether there is a need to change the composition of the board; and if not, whether a temporary withdrawal or abstention from making assessment on certain candidates will suffice.

The Commission has advised AAs that if they err, they should err on the conservative side in considering declarations of conflicts of interest. In 2019, the Commission is pleased to note the appropriate decisions taken by the AAs which are in conformity with the guidelines issued by CSB. The Commission will continue to encourage B/Ds to maintain its vigilance in handling declarations to guard against any perceived or genuine conflict of interest.

However, in a couple of promotion exercises submitted by two departments, the Commission noted the continued appointment of the same board members who had made similar declarations of a relationship needed to be declared with certain candidates. The first department explained that it needed to appoint all division heads to serve on the boards to provide supplementary information on the candidates’ performance. A deviation from such practice might give rise to staff concern over whether their claims would be fully considered if their division heads were not present at the Board. The Commission considered that such staff concern was unfounded, reflecting their lack of understanding of the role and function of a member of promotion boards. As set out in the Guidebook on Appointments, all eligible candidates should be considered on the basis of the assessment given in their appraisal reports. Board members’ personal knowledge of a candidate’s performance serves to supplement but not override the assessment written in the appraisal reports. In their capacity as an appraising officer or countersigning officer, division heads should have offered their honest assessment in the appraisals. More importantly, it is the AA and not the promotion boards who ultimately decides who should be promoted on the advice of the Commission. The management should explain to staff members to quell any misunderstanding instead of acquiesce by continuing with the practice. The other department explained that the AA had allowed the concerned member to continue to serve on the promotion board and assess the claim of the declared candidate, because the member had first hand knowledge about the duties of the candidate. However, given the relationship declared, the Commission was concerned about the risk of a perceived conflict of interest if the concerned member continued to serve on the promotion board. Noting that the declared candidate’s countersigning officer was also serving on the board, there should not be any concern that the candidate’s fair claim as detailed in the performance appraisal reports would be overlooked. The Commission considers that declaration and avoidance of any real or perceived conflict serve not only to uphold the impartiality of the board but also imperative to stave off accusations of favouritism. For this reason, the Commission has advised both departments to address the problem of perception before conducting the next round of promotion exercises.

For some other promotion boards, unnecessary declarations were observed to have been made such as occasional social gatherings with former classmates in groups while contacts were maintained at an official level only. Given that pure working relationships with no personal dealings are not required to be declared according to Annex 3.2 of the Guidebook on Appointments, the Commission has advised the concerned B/Ds to seek clarifications from CSB if in doubt in order that future boards could be provided with clearer guidelines obviating the need to make unnecessary declarations.

It is the B/Ds’ responsibility to ensure strict confidentiality of promotion recommendations prior to their promulgation. The Commission noted from the content of a complaint that the recommendations of a promotion board might have been leaked. In another case, an officer lodged a petition and requested a review of the board’s recommendations while the Commission was still examining the board’s report. The Commission has requested the concerned departments to remind all officers involved in the conduct of promotion exercises to strictly observe the confidentiality of all related information and to take due measures to prevent unauthorised disclosure in future exercises.