EXCLUSIVE: Ushirikiano wa Makampuni ya Mafuta na CCM
EXCLUSIVE: Ushirikiano wa Makampuni ya Mafuta na CCM
- Thread starter Kiranja
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #44
ENERGY AND WATER UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY (EWURA)
BOARD PAPER NO: ……. DATED 26 JULY 2011
STAFF APPRAISALS
The purpose of this paper is to submit recommendations to the Board of Directors for the Board to approve the renewal or non-renewal of the contracts for members of staff who were employed by the Authority in 2006 and have contract end date as of 31 July 2011 to 30 November 2011.
2. BACKGROUND
As the Authority nears its fifth anniversary since establishment, contracts for approximately 30% of current staff members who were employed during the first year of operation are coming to an end. In the interest of continuity and institutional memory, the Director General sought to undertake the Staff Appraisals to be used as the basis for contract renewal and/or termination, as appropriate.
In all, twenty-nine members of staff ranging in seniority from Levels 2-10 were apprised over a three month period. Eleven of these members of staff are in Levels 2-3 and have contracts that must be reviewed by the Board, while the remaining eighteen are in Levels 4-10 whose contracts are under the purview of the Director General.
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER
The objective of this paper is to present recommendations to the Board of Directors, for the Board to approve the renewal or non-renewal of contracts for eleven members of staff in Levels 2-3, as a result of staff appraisals that were conducted by the Director General during the period of March to June, 2011.
4. STAFF APPRAISAL
A total of twenty-nine employees, with contract end dates ranging from 31 July 2011 to 30 November 2011, ranging in seniority level 2-10, were appraised by the Director General as part of end of contract assessment. See Annex 1 for complete list of all staff members that were apprised.
The appraisals were done over the course of three months whereby members of staff were asked to rank their performance, over the period of their contract, and were also given the opportunity to voice any concerns and/or opinions on the current status of the Authority. Furthermore, members were encouraged to share opinions of how best to improve upon the Authority's successes and suggest ways forward. The feedback from these appraisals, were taken into account when preparing recommendations, regarding the new organizational structure, for the Authority and in revising the Strategic Plan. See Annex 2, a matrix containing all comments and recommendations made by staff.
Each appraisal lasted between fifteen to thirty minutes and was conducted as a hybrid of an informal meeting and an interview. At the end of the appraisal, the staff member received a ‘grade mark' ranging from A to F (excellent to unsatisfactory) which was reflective of his/her performance rating throughout the term of employment as assessed by the Director General. Other factors which were considered when determining the grades given to each member of staff include the following: professional conduct with respect to the individual's responsibilities and duties; communication skills; team work and participation; leadership skills and contribution to the Authority during the term of employment.
A grade of ‘D' or above garnered the recipient a recommendation for contract renewal while a grade of ‘E' or below earned one a recommendation for non-renewal of their contract and subsequent re-advertising of the position. Table 1 summarizes the grading structure used during appraisals.
Table 1: Grading Structure
[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
Grade
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Performance ranking
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Recommendation
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
A
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Excellent
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
B
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Very good
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
C
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Good
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
D
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Satisfactory
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
E
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Poor
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Not renew the contract and advertise the position
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]
F
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Unsatisfactory
[/TD]
[TD="width: 290, bgcolor: transparent"]Not renew the contract and advertise the position
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
5. OUTCOME OF STAFF APPRAISALS
On average, most staff received a grade of either ‘B' or ‘C', a small number received ‘A' and only two persons received grades that are below satisfactory level (one ‘E' and one ‘F').
The breakdown of grades given to the members of staff in Levels 2-3 is listed in Table 2 below. The full list of grades given to members of staff is listed in Annex 1 and submitted to the Board for information only.
Table 2: Summary of Grades Received for Levels 2-3
[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 737"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
Grade
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Performance ranking
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Recommendation
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Level 2: Directors
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]Level 3: Managers
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
A
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Excellent
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Corporate Affairs; Director of Regulatory Economics
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]Head of Procurement Management Unit; Chief Internal Auditor; Commercial Manager - Electricity
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
B
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Very good
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Natural Gas; Director of Water and Sewerage
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]Technical Manager – Water and Sewerage
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
C
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Good
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Legal Services
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]Technical Manager – Petroleum; Principal Communications and Public Relations Officer
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
D
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Satisfactory
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Offer to renew contract
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Electricity
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]-
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
E
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Poor
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Not renew the contract and advertise the position
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Petroleum
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]-
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 67, bgcolor: transparent"]
F
[TD="width: 126, bgcolor: transparent"]Unsatisfactory
[/TD]
[TD="width: 156, bgcolor: transparent"]Not renew the contract and advertise the position
[/TD]
[TD="width: 222, bgcolor: transparent"]-
[/TD]
[TD="width: 165, bgcolor: transparent"]Manager of Regulatory Economics
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Tables 3-4 list evaluation comments of each member of staff in Levels 2-3 as taken from the Staff Appraisal.
Table 3: Summary of Remarks from Appraisal of Level 2 Directors
[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Item
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Position
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Remarks from Appraisal
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]1.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Natural Gas
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Commended for frequent positive contribution to organizational framework with regards to cross-cutting sector issues.
Cautioned on weakness in communication and interpersonal skills.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]2.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Legal Services
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Credited for being intelligent, loyal, and trustworthy and keenly follows regulations. Also credited with very good command of the English language. Has been acting DG more often than anyone else. However, she was cautioned for being media shy; procrastinating on issues of concern ; overly cautious when it comes to expressing her views and opinion; and slow pace of licensing. Consequently, she rarely volunteers any advice and has been overshadowed by her juniors. Although she is supposed to be the one writing minutes of the Board, she has delegated this responsibility to her juniors. Lack of supervision has resulted in minutes being prepared late, resulting in admonition by the Board and Board Committees, with the Director General having to apologize on several occasions. As a result of her procrastination, she never made good her promise to become an Advocate after she had been appointed Secretary to the Board. To date, she is yet to present her petition in that regard. Regrettably, most of her juniors are now qualified advocates while she is not. It is recommended that renewal of her contract should be accompanied with a condition for her to become an advocate within six months from the date of contract renewal.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]3.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Petroleum
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Cautioned on perceptions that he is not a team-player within the organizational structure, that he is possessive of the petroleum division and that he is selective on issues regarding licensing. Further cautioned that he is given to the application of double standards in dealing with cases of a similar nature. Has been known to sign off on matters that merit the Director General's attention in a manner that his peers/subordinates have construed as attempts to protect selected operators. Engages in back biting of colleagues and superiors. Generally in poor health that has been linked to irresponsible drinking habits that resulted in the Board giving him a stern warning in 2009. He claims to have stopped drinking but has had to be given special medical attention when he travelled abroad to Djibouti and Malawi in 2010. Generally intelligent but intolerant to opposing views. Tends to intimidate "non-confirming" juniors and is considered as arrogant by peers.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]4.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Electricity
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]He is a nice, gentle, religious person. Commended for being trustworthy, loyal and easy to work with. However, he is challenged in terms of oral communication skills and punctuates every other sentence with an "eer". Generally complacent and reacts to issues often raised by other staff who seem to be worried of inaction from his division. He has not handled well matters relating to the licensing of electricity contractors. As a result, no report is yet to be submitted to the Board with regard to this activity for the past two years. He managed a ‘flawed' process that improperly usurped the powers of the Board to issue licenses.
Cautioned on the slow pace of turning benefits of international cooperation so that it is reflected in EWURA rules and regulation; lack of monitoring system and independent data in Directorate when compared with Petrol and Water Divisions; and on lack of innovation in Electricity Directorate, such that perceptions were that he tends to be satisfied with the status quo.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]5.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Regulatory Economics
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Commended for his contribution to the organizational structure. Under his tenure, he assisted with setting up an information system, pricing template and verifying financial viability of applicants.
He admitted lack of awareness in natural gas sector which he attributed to lack of reference data and given that the sector is still in its infancy stage.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]6.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Water and Sewerage
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Commended for very good supervisory skills with respect to development of water sector and incremental approach to problem solving. Experience as an operator, good contacts with German development partners and previous background with ministry helped with development of the division.
Under his tenure, the Authority has continued to take on more responsibility in the water sector. There has been increased engagement from the utility authorities which has lead to ever increasing acceptance of EWURA as a regulator by the utility authorities.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]7.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Director of Corporate Affairs
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Credited with consecutive good audit reports, improved staff welfare, loans and pension funds during his tenure.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- Thread starter
- #46
soma faida wanayopata hawa jamaa kila lita ni kiasi gani. Then unganisheni na hoja ambazo zinafanyiwa kazi kutokana na lalamiko kuwa hawana faida kumbe ni uongo .Angalia kila lita moja wanalipwa kiasi gani cha fedha.
View attachment 35149
View attachment 35149
kweleakwelea
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 3,075
- 1,550
lete nuziiii papa kIRANJA!!!!
DSN
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 2, 2011
- 2,837
- 1,688
Hapo kwenye red ndipo kulipo na tatizo la EWURA, na kwenye blue bado msiba mkubwa uliotufikisha hapa,Jamani Wana wa Tanzania tufike sehemu tukubaliane si kunyanyapana bali ndio hali halisi na ukweli kuwa tunafika sehemu kiutendaji tunaathiri na kuludisha nyuma sababu ya janga hili.Kwani watu wazima msione ili.Mkubali kuwa mwenzetu huyu ngoja hakae pembeni apewe kazi nyepesi nyepesi kama ni kumlea basi mlee kwenye mazingira yasiyo na tashiti na umuhimu mkubwa kwa Taifa kama hizi.
Wataalamu wanajua mbona awaseme juu ya tatizo hili.popote penye maamuzi ya ajabu na vituko vingi tataizo hili limekuwa likichangia sana japo si lahisi kufahamika na kueleweka kwa wengi.
Tufike sehemu tukubali tunatatizo na kama tatizo akiwa nalo mwenzetu mpeni desk mpeni kazi nyepesi mleeni kwa misingi hiyo,Lakini si kumpa sehemu nyeti na muhimu kwenye Taifa kama mtu ni mgonjwa.
Mpaka lini mambo haya.
Ni kweli MM
Lakini naamini watanzania kiasi cha kutosha hawakuichagua CCM mwaka jana,tatizo ni kwamba mifumo ya kuhesabu kura halali imeingiliwa na virusi vya aina zote kiasi kwamba kama hivi virusi hatutaviondoa kwa utaratibu tutakaokubaliana kwenye katiba mpya bado hawa jamaa watatuchezea sana.
Mwl Solomon
Member
- Oct 25, 2010
- 24
- 14
Jamani signed agreement iko wapi?
Mpaka Kieleweke
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2007
- 4,132
- 1,583
Haya bana , hizi kumbe sio siri tena na sasa zipo hadharani mchana kweupe peee.........
wimbi la mbele
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 4, 2011
- 647
- 269
Petrol station pembeni ya apartments?
tukisema kuwa hata hao watu wa environmental impact assessment wamekula rushwa mtakataa?
tukisema kuwa hata hao watu wa environmental impact assessment wamekula rushwa mtakataa?
Similar Discussions
-
Mwenyekiti wa UVCCM Mkoa wa Pwani kakosea kutaka waziri aombe radhi, kilichosemwa na waziri kilihusu watu sio jumuiya.
- Started by KARLO MWILAPWA
- Replies: 9
-
Faris Burihan amesema Wakati akiwa mwenyekkti wa UVCCM Kagera, Niliwapiga Marufuku Wapinzani kukanyaga Kagera na hawakukanyaga
- Started by carbohydates
- Replies: 8
-
CCM yamteua mgombea Chamwino, yamteua Faris Buruan kuwa Katibu Mkuu UVCCM- Started by Parabolic
- Replies: 4
-
-
Mwenyekiti wa UVCCM Taifa, Mohamed Kawaida amtaka Mchengerwa afuate taratibu za CCM badala ya kuwakatisha tamaa vijana
- Started by Lucas Mwashambwa
- Replies: 13