Inside the Environment Agency - this post has been submitted to Indymedia to raise awareness of and provide examples of what is going on day to day at our expense.

Environment Agency Insider

Henry
Exposing the internal waste of tax payer and licence payer funds, abuse of working/flexi time and annual leave by staff members, mismanagement by senior and line managers, and the victimisation and harassment of licence holders and operators. AS SOON AS THESE ISSUES ARE DEALT WITH, I WILL DELETE THIS BLOG.


Last posts
Continuing working/flexi time and annual leave abuse
Environment Agency Response to Recent Floods - Too Little, Too Late
Environment Agency Flood Defence Assets - Manipulation of Figures - Are they fit for purpose?
Comparing England's Environment Agency to European Counterparts
Environment Officers Collaborating Statements / Exaggerating Offences
Widespread working time and holiday abuse by Environment Officers
Inside Comments from other Serving and Ex-EA Staff
Many Environment Agency Staff Giving Their Support
Environment Officer Assessment - subjective recruitment and promotions inside the Environment Agency
Natural England and Environment Agency - Uncomfortable Questions
Guest: Why is our Environment Agency so large?
Environment Agency job cuts bigger and quicker than expected
Poor recruitment, selection and vetting processes
Environment Agency acting as judge, jury and executioner!
Bribes, favouritisms and conflicting interests inside the Environment Agency
3 Cars, 8 Environment Officers, 1 Meter
Epic Incompetence and Failure inside the Environment Agency
Pareto Principle and the Environment Agency
Internal memo going around inside Environment Agency
Good luck with Freedom of Information requests to the Environment Agency
Rumour based intelligence system and undercover operations open to abuse inside the Environment Agency
Racially Motivated Targeting by Environment Officers
Why I Left the Environment Agency?
Abuse of lease cars by Environment Officers
Environment Agency Fraudulently Boosting Incident Rates
Summer Environment Officer - Life of sunbathing & shopping
Inconsistent environmental regulatory approach
Inside the Environment Agency from an ex-Environment Agency employee




Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Continuing working/flexi time and annual leave abuse

Thanks to my very loyal colleague who still works inside the Environment Agency (although also disillusioned by it all), I now have a copy of the annual leave record cards used by staff. This is kept by the staff member, completed by the staff member and signed by the line manager. As exposed in an earlier post, this system is regularly abused by significant numbers of staff members, including line management. Despite staff only being entitled to 25 to 30 days annual leave (plus additional flexi days - if they put in the hours), I have witnessed, and my loyal internal friends still attest to, many staff taking far in excess of these entitlements - as many as three months in some instances.

Working hours are similarly logged on a simple spreadsheet and updated to the IBIS system by the staff members themselves (there has been discussions about the money wasted on this archaic system in the news). Apparently, abuse of this system is also continuing, despite the recent announcement of cuts. Again, as mentioned in earlier posts, I have witnessed staff come in at 10am and go home at 3pm and still record that they worked 9am to 5pm (7am to 3pm, 10am to 6pm, etc). Other abuses still apparently continue, such as field staff (especially Environment Officers) claiming to carry out site/incident visits, but in actual fact going home, going shopping and carrying out other domestic activities whilst claiming to be working, staff with home working privileges who do anything but, as well as claiming back higher mileage expenses than what they actually incur - I remember one Officer who claimed to be making an additional £90-100 per month through logging extra mileage.

I'm hoping to get hold of some screenshots of the IBIS and spreadsheets to illustrate how archaic and open to abuse these systems are.

Hopefully, this blog will continue to paint a picture of the actual internal workings of the Environment Agency. It should help illustrate the amount of waste and mismanagement taking place. This is, of course, leaving out the bullying and harassment of staff members who don't tow the line and of operators who question our decisions.

As a recent commenter put it: "I was an EA officer for 10 years and during that time no-one ever verified my time recording - it was an admin task that was bodged together every fortnight . The IBIS system was painful to use and on ocasion took a couple of hours to populate with useless data. All so someone in a higher paid position could analyse the useless data for useless reporting? Similarly no -one ever verified my mileage claims or compared it against the time recording . In the 'good old days' when you were allowed to use your own vehicle and reclaim mileage it would have been easy to rack up significant extra mileage claims - payback on lease car rates would make £90-£100 per month very difficult though.....seems doubtful. The flexible working regime is something i do miss - and with no real monitoring of comings and goings it was ripe for abuse(should you be so inclined) . For those of us who worked hard it was soul destroying watching some of the staff cruise in and out at will and still take their allocation of 13 days flexi per year - despite never managing a 37.5 hr week.. What isnt mentioned is the Working From Home phenomena that is supported by the EA. Some staff are literally raising families while supposedly WFH. Attending the office 1 day a week (sometimes) while working at home with 2 under 5's for the other 3/4 days. Staff unable to attend incidents at regulated sites because they cant be contacted - as they at school with the kids or in the shops... yep. There are great, hard-working and commited people at the EA- some are fantastic - and i guess you would find this in any organisation of this size. But all the above is common knowledge/ a joke within the organisation and change is required."






EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (11) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Agency Response to Recent Floods - Too Little, Too Late

One theme I have been picking up on speaking to people affected by this month's flooding and from what I could observe from recent media coverage, a picture is beginning to emerge that the Environment Agency acted too little, too late. Although there was full deployment and immediate response from other emergency services (as expected), there was a somewhat absent presence of Environment Agency staff on the streets during the early phases, as evidenced by new media photographs and videos. It was only several hours after the event that the EA seems to have finally gotten around to publicly responding to the incident, and a further day or so until there was full mobilisation on the streets during the recovery.

This is an organisation whose significant purpose is dealing with flooding (among more minor roles), with over 11,200 staff (at current levels before minimum cuts) and it seems to have been caught sleeping at the wheel. I could be wrong, and perhaps the feedback I have received from people effected is exaggerated, but I don't believe I that's the case. I am more than aware of many EA staff who shun standby duties, which significantly depletes manpower when dealing with these emergencies - this is something not tolerated by their emergency service counterparts, who have higher esteem for doing their duty.

Now that the worst is over, it's not too surprising to see three, four or more EA staff standing around to pick up on the afterglow of positive PR, which should rightfully go to their emergency service counterparts. It is not too difficult to see in many news media photographs several EA staff standing with hands in pockets doing nothing. Why? Publicity.

Of course, for those familiar with this blog and the experiences I/other ex-EA staff have posted, you won't be surprised if it turns out that the Environment Agency has in fact failed to act promptly in carrying out its duties.


EnvironmentAgencyEAFloodsFloodingDecemberFloodsChristmasFloods
Permalink · Comments (4) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Agency Flood Defence Assets - Manipulation of Figures - Are they fit for purpose?

I'd like to extend my thoughts to those who have been impacted by the devastating floods hitting our nation over this festive season. My thoughts especially go out to the brave men and women working in our emergency services and the "very" few Environment Agency staff who are actually doing their job and who are helping to alleviate the impacts

My experiences working in, combined with a recent comment from a EA staff members, has left me wondering whether these recent flood incidents have been exasperated due to mismanagement and internal abuse, especially by senior managers and team leaders, of flood assets funded and built to minimise the effects of these flood incidents - here he states:

"In the Region I work in, over the last 5 - 10 years KPI (key performance indicators - traffic light system) targets have been met with a green light, giving the impression to the public and the Agency bosses / government that all its assets are in good working order and as the KPI % increased each year the EA appeared to be doing a sterling job by improving the condition of its assets each year. This is however far from what was really going on. The figures where being manipulated so bosses could claim to be meeting there targets / IPP performance and perhaps as a result of this a promotion / pay rise, actually a lot of assets that failing where being passed as fit for purpose. I'm sure the tax paying public a those relying on these assets would be appalled by this attitude."

As another EA member put it, "it doesn't help that 99% of the staff, mostly Environment and Flood Officers, refuse to do standby or volunteer to assist with flooding emergencies. This is despite it being in their contract. It leaves us undermanned and ill prepared, but managers won't do anything about but claim they need to employ more staff. Really, management just want to expand their kingdoms"

I have personal experience of Environment Agency team leaders and senior managers pressurising staff to exaggerate incidents and EA mitigation activities. I have also heard Flood Officers discuss being pressurised to under report problems they experience on our flood defence networks. I think these are key issues that should be looked into during the next review in addition to what has already been expressed previously in this blog and by others.


EnvironmentAgencyFloodFloodDefenceStormsFloodOfficersFloodRisk
Permalink · Comments (22) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Comparing England's Environment Agency to European Counterparts

Environment Agency Area Covered Population Employed Staff/'000 km2 Capita-Staff Budget
England 130,395 km2 53 million 11,400 87 4,649 £1.2 billion1
Germany 357,021 km2 81 million 1,400 4 57,857 £84 million2
France 674,843 km2 65 million 820 1 79,268 £540 million3
Sweden 449,964 km2 9.5 million 530 1 17,924 £33 million4
Austria 83,855 km2 8.5 million 477 6 17,819 £36 million5
Denmark 43,094 km2 5.6 million 450 10 12,444 £103 million6

A few interesting facts: other European Environment Agencies have more duties than our Environment Agency, but manage them with lower staffing and budgetary levels. It's interesting how even though the Danish Environment Agency faces greater risks and greater costs from flood protection than England, it again manages this and it's additional duties with far lower staffing and budgetary levels. Most stunning is the fact that England's Environment Agency employs more staff than all the above combined by a factor of THREE and has almost TWICE the budget of ALL THE ABOVE COMBINED.

Going by these statistics, it would appear that the Environment Agency is overstaffed by around 9,000 and has a budget that appears to be £0.5-1 billion too much.

This, along with what I and others have experienced, highlights the dire need for an indepth analysis and review of the Environment Agency with the aim of restructuring the body to ensure that tax payer money is being spent effectively.

1  http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1314/hc04/0497/0497.pdf
2  http://epanet.ew.eea.europa.eu/european_epas/countries/de
3  http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/KBaseShow?sort=-1&cid=96&m=3&catid=17614
4  http://epanet.ew.eea.europa.eu/european_epas/countries/se
5  http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/en/en_aboutus/fakten_zahlen/
6  http://www.mst.dk/English/About+the+Danish+EPA/simplification_of_rules/


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (41) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Officers Collaborating Statements / Exaggerating Offences

It is common practice for Environment Officers to collaborate their statements when compiling a case against an offender. Common practice is for one Environment Officer to take all the notes, and then allow other Officers present to copy these notes once back at the office. Another common practice is for Environment Officers to write down notes in a normal notepad so that later a more convincing statement can be written back at the office that will help lead to a successful case. These practices should not be carried out by any law enforcement agency, but are standard practices in the Environment Agency.

Other practices are the exaggeration of 'environmental crimes' to justify prosecution cases that are otherwise not in the interests of the public. This is done by reclassifying pollutants and/or wastes as different substances other than present, such as making out hazardous properties that were not present, or by claiming a full environmental permit was required whereby only an exemption would have been needed. Other exaggerations include overstating financial benefits obtained, stating environmental impacts that were not the case and by not including extenuating circumstances at the time of the 'offence'. Unfortunately, many of the 'environmental offenders' we deal with are small business/sole operators who have little knowledge or funds to fight back, and are all too willing to accept full blame in order to avoid greater penalties.

It is also common for Environment Officers to fail to follow through on all leads, instead choosing to allow their prejudgements to decide on how they conduct investigations, typically resulting in the cases being built up against the wrong business/person, which later has to be dropped when old evidence surfaces. These go unreported as they do not reach court, but accounts for a large waste of Environment Agency resources (time, funds, etc) and an additional cost to the businesses they regulate.

These are hard for people to prove against, because they take place back at the office when the case is being put together so that any inconsistencies can be 'ironed' out and for counter evidence to be removed (there are no processes or oversight on how evidence is stored and treated during the early stages of an investigation, we have our own cameras, use scraps of paper and own storage where we can decide on what we decide to present in a case).

There have been numerous cases whereby Environment Officers have entered land without permission from the landowner and without leaving a Notice of Powers and Rights when collecting evidence, but have then later, back in the office, completed this important document and destroyed the recipients half. Other times, Environment Officers leave the Notice where it can easily be lost, damaged and removed prior to the landowner seeing it. This leaves the landowner unaware of what has taken place or of their rights.

These pose significant problems for these people and businesses, as their legal teams then do not have the full picture and have to rely on what the prosecution provides (from the Environment Agency), which is obviously incomplete. In most cases, 'offenders' are happy to quickly remediate problems, but Environment Officers are unlikely to report this in their cases. As the people and businesses were unaware or did not anticipate these exaggerations, they never had the foresight to gather their own evidence to prove against the accusations.

This is a problem that seldom is highlighted, as it provides a good source of income and PR for the Environment Agency.


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (10) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Widespread working time and holiday abuse by Environment Officers

I'm sure most people are used to working a contracted number of hours per week and receiving x amount of days off per year. There isn't usually much scope of working less hours without being paid less, or receiving more time off work without a special reason.

That's true, that is, if you didn't work for the Environment Agency. Here we are entrusted to log our own hours without oversight, holidays taken off are supposed to be recorded on a piece of card with a signature from management for approval, but this rarely happens. What does all this mean? Environment Agency employees (particularly Environment Officers) regularly come in later then they log down, leave much earlier than they report and take many more days off as annual leave than their entitlement.

I've seen fellow colleagues who have taken off as much as 8-12 weeks off work, fully paid, not as sick, but all as annual leave, despite only being contracted to 27 days plus flexidays. I've seen colleagues work less than 30 hours per week, who log down on their time sheets 37-40 hours. But what about line management I hear you ask? They never pay attention, and those that do turn a blind eye to it.

On a daily basis, I see fellow Environment Agency employees putting they work an extra 1-3 hours per day so that their time sheets match their contracted hours, so many of us who are 'supposed' to be doing our 37 hours per week are in fact doing as little as 30 hours per week. Not only that, but we can just take a day off, get the wink from our management and claim it as annual leave or a flexi-day, but in fact, it's never logged. You just complete your time sheet as if you worked that day.

Better yet, you want to take off 9 days next month for that holday to Ibiza, but you only have 8 'official' days leave, no probs, log down an extra hour worked per day (but don't work it) and hey presto, an extra flexi day off giving you 9. Don't worry about line management, if they 'somehow' find out, most will overlook it.

This practice is well known internally and accepted as the norm, but just don't talk about it, because no-one likes a tell all. I've seen it raised and the person raising it be shot down and destroyed. No one wants the party spoiled, so you just join in.

Ask yourself this, as a tax payer or licence payer whose money pays our salaries, how do you feel that we not only get better security and more money than you, but also literally get to choose how many hours we work and how many days holiday we can have, and all with minimal oversight? Don't forget, most of us are regulatory officers with many powers who tell you what to do, yet we flout our own rules - it's the 'do as I say, not as I do' syndrome.


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgency
Permalink · Comments (20) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Inside Comments from other Serving and Ex-EA Staff

Andy "In the Region I work in, over the last 5 - 10 years KPI (key performance indicators - traffic light system) targets have been met with a green light, giving the impression to the public and the Agency bosses / government that all its assets are in good working order and as the KPI % increased each year the EA appeared to be doing a sterling job by improving the condition of its assets each year. This is however far from what was really going on. The figures where being manipulated so bosses could claim to be meeting there targets / IPP performance and perhaps as a result of this a promotion / pay rise, actually a lot of assets that failing where being passed as fit for purpose. I'm sure the tax paying public a those relying on these assets would be appalled by this attitude."

Sickbag "Mark, it is a fair and valid point that EM in my experience are the worst offenders. The main issue is that the team leaders and the a lot of the Senior Management all came through the ranks. They are all very naïve and afraid to rock the boat, I remember one of our Grade 4 officers sat in on a Team Leaders meeting and challenged the Area Manager about "cooking the books" on HS figures and near misses. Apparently it made for a very uncomfortable meeting but afterwards two of the Team leaders approached the officer and thanked him for raising these points as they were "not allowed" to challenge the Area Manager. As you can imagine that Grade 4 was never invited back to sit in. As I stated earlier the government officials and Senior Management are part and parcel of the problem that exists at the EA."

EO John "It's simply a case of too many staff chasing too little work. It has been this was at least since I started in 2003. There is a real problem of overstaffing and misallocation of resources. This is why staff take excessive leave and fix time sheets."

Sickbag "Lets not forget the "working at home" brigade as well, I remember in my time at the EA it was known as "w*nking at home!". There used to be officers in my team who would work up to 2 days at home, they would then complete their timesheets as started work at 08:00 and finished at 17:30. Management never checked and they were even allowed to claim flexi-time! When I raised this with management it was always brushed under the carpet, I have never seen as much shopping, parcel collecting from depots, dropping off duvets to be washed, or early finishes in my life. For those of us who live and work in the "real world" just imagine trying to get away with these issues with your boss!"

Sickbag "Mark, the problem is to many of the EA board and it's cohorts went to the same University and socialise in the same clubs as their masters in Government. The organisation is to big a "monster" for it to undergo any significant changes. I was speaking to some of my ex-colleagues the other night who were so happy about the "storm surge " on the east coast. Let them cut our budgets now, was the battle cry. As far as EO john's comments about to many staff chasing too little work, he obviously never worked in my EM team. 12 Officers but only three us would regularly attend NIRS, to convince the others to leave the office was like trying to pull teeth. When the management were ever challenged they would just ring their hands and plead ignorance or even admit they couldn't do anything about it as it was the norm! I had officers not attending fish kills because it was the weekend and they were out with their friends at the weekend when they were supposed to be on duty!"

John Green "If the taxpayers knew just how many millions of pounds the EA has wasted since it started on opening and shutting offices throughout the country they would be staggered ….and we are not just talking here about the move from Rio to Horizon House in Bristol. They would also be outraged if they found out about the millions wasted on IT systems that never worked properly ….and drove staff to distraction trying to operate them. For example, questions were asked in parliament about how the IBIS project was managed. Were the Area Flood Defence committees scrapped because some of the more astute members were asking too many penetrating questions about flood defence schemes that failed to work properly or were overspent by millions of pounds? We are talking here about the Jubilee Channel project on the Thames and many more besides. Were regional members of committees who were asking too many pertinent questions quietly removed ---- those ex-committee members reading this who were not re-appointed should think back and ask themselves why."

Ian "Good points John. Same up this end. Office move from Phoenix to Lateral in Leeds didn't save a penny because of the higher operating costs and the additional renovation costs of the move outweighed everything. Even had to pay a private car lot for staff parking, which wasted a significant sum. IT systems here are a joke. IBIS and other new systems have proven to be a failure with huge sums wasted. Flood defences are a whole other story. Tens, if not hundreds of millions wasted on poorly planned schemes that can't do the job they were created for."

Paul "Look around almost any of our offices. See the covert phone-users, the private emailers, the game-players, the asleep at their desk sorts - do as little as you can and get away with it; it's endemic, part of the national mindset and culture. Henry, kudos to you for having the guts to come out."

Danny K "Don't expect this blog to change anything any time soon. Nothing has changed in the last 10 years I have worked here. Same old faces, same old tactics and same old mistakes."

Anne Alkham "I hope as many politicians and journalists as possible will not only read but also take action in regards to the content of this excellent site. I also hope that members and former members of flood defence committees, RFERACS and REPACS will realise how, in some instances, the wool has been pulled over their eyes. The gross abuses of taxpayers’ money and bullying which have gone on for far too long are being exposed for the very first time by the brave person who instigated this blog….and who I should add is not known to me. But in case anyone should get the wrong opinion many of those who work for the Environment Agency were - and still are - some of the finest, most dedicated and hard-working men and women you could ever hope to meet. I have stood beside them in some of the worst weather nature has ever thrown at us and seen them at great personal cost heroically struggle time after time to save communities from floods, pollution and other environmental hazards. Let us not beat about the bush some lost their lives and others their health because of the pressures they were placed under and the bullying atmosphere they were forced to work in. They can’t speak for themselves but I can speak on their behalf. As far as management is concerned so often it has been the case of Lions led by Donkeys."

Anne Alkham "I wonder what would happen to the salaries and bonuses of senior managers and directors if this were to happen? The Welsh EA operation has already been hived off, there have been job cuts and hundreds more to come and yet senior managers and directors still command huge salaries and bonuses….some are earning more than the Prime Minister. Will we see them also taking job cuts and 20% reductions in their salaries?…..I think not. If any do leave the parachute departure clauses in their contracts will no doubt ensure they are in clover for the rest of their lives……unlike staff “lower down the food chain” as I have heard them describe it. Those dedicated staff who have given a lifetime to the environment and to the Agency and who have first been humiliated and then robbed of their rightful redundancy payments before being sent packing will know what I mean. Those responsible will not care because they know what they have been up to…..but younger members of the EA take note…..it will happen to you one day. Take a look at this site which shows what directors and senior managers have been earning….and ask yourself are these salaries justified?  http://data.gov.uk/organogram/environment-agency"

John Green "The Environment Agency costs so much because its managers and directors spend taxpayers money as if it is going out of fashion…and on anything but the environment. For example they spent over £30,000 in Birmingham sponsoring the Gay Pride Festival. Check this out at:- www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/fury-as-environment-agency-hands-70000-240496 The MP Norman Baker who is now Home Office Minister was so concerned about the money being spent by EA staff and directors visiting the Henley Regatta and the prestigious Belfry Golf Hotel in the Midlands that he asked questions in Parliament. Check this out at:- www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070917/text/70917w0012.htm What is more they did so with the knowledge of Civil Servants at MAFF/Defra who are supposed to be managing the quango from their sunny offices beside the River Thames."

Anne Alkham "When the Environment Agency started life in 1996 it inherited roughly speaking 35 communications and Public Relations staff from the National Rivers Authority. They were based around the regions and in the head offices in Bristol and London. The NRA had a good media reputation and for the first few years so did the EA. But after the Millennium numbers were expanded rapidly to around 350 – a ten-fold increase. As the numbers of PR staff grew exponentially the reputation of the EA with the public & the media plummeted. This is not surprising because so many of the new recruits were inexperienced and of very poor quality. As was the case throughout the public sector at this time many were recruited more to peddle Labour party propaganda at the taxpayers expense rather than to protect the environment ….a scandal which has never really been properly exposed by the media."

John Green "Some of the problems with the EA have their roots with the National Rivers Authority. At privatisation of the industry the water companies did a dirty deal and hived off most of the worst managers to the NRA. There many sat until they were over promoted when the NRA became the Environment Agency. Most were out of depth and resorted to bullying of staff because they knew no other way to manage. This all became an accepted part of the overall culture as the bullies recruited even more bullies in the image of themselves. Over the years that followed many first class EA employees were lost as they resigned bruised and battered from the mental beatings they received."

Anne Alkham "I hope those good and dedicated staff who lose their jobs with the EA in this latest round of culling ensure they receive what they are entitled to. Many of those who have been bullied out their jobs have left with nothing. Those who were given redundancy payments found that the amount they were promised was dramatically reduced at the last minute after they had agreed to leave and had signed the paperwork. Is this surprising? Ruth Cornish the former head of EA HR in Bristol said in a Guardian newspaper article on 28 May 2011 that when she worked for the Agency: “I was once incentivised to get rid of people more cheaply than they were legally entitled to…” Those who managed Ruth are still with the EA to the present day. There must surely be enough people in Bristol/London HQ and throughout the regions and areas who have suffered bullying at the EA for an enterprising firm of solicitors to consider it has a strong enough case to bring a class action against the Agency. This links refer to the above:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/28/hr-friend-or-foe-human-resources  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/formal_objectives_and_targets_fo_2"

John Green "In my time at the EA over 20 close colleagues were forced to leave because of bullying. The situation was terrible and there were tears in the toilets almost every day. Some of the better managers had breakdowns. But those responsible for the bullying moved onwards and upwards within the organisation to take salaries most taxpayers can only dream about. With the exception of a few stories in the ENDS report this is the first time the lid has been lifted on what has really been going on within the EA. It’s a great site and I hope other present and former members of the EA will use it to share their awful experiences. I hope journalists will also use it to launch an investigation that is long overdue."

Ella "Having left after many years service I decided to apply for a temporary position, got an interview which was a surprisingly very positive experience but didn't get the job. Some inside information revealed that I was put forward as first choice but... it was given to the managers wife. They obviously knew who they would award it to before the interviews took place, I would have loved to have made this public knowledge, at least I can now share thanks to this blog and join Anne in thanking the originator."

RR "Disgruntled traitor. You didn't belong here, get over it!"

You know who "This is ridiculous. As a trusted officer, I have too much to do to be worried about these stupid requests. Its only morons who have nothing better to do with their lives that send them in. Get over it."

Lisa "We're not all like this. I know it happens in some regions, but not the Midlands region where I operate from."

Lisa "I work in a water team now, but I agree that there used to be a problem consistency. I don't know how much this has changed in the waste teams now. I've heard problems in other regions, but not so many in mine (Midlands)."

Anne Alkham "As an ex-employee of the Environment Agency I can only commend the originator of this blog for the brave action they are taking in exposing a situation that has for far too long been hidden from the public eye. I urge politicians and all who believe in the environment to read very carefully what is being written here. A great deal of what is being said rings true and is not just the views of one disaffected employee. In my experience the EA management encourages a culture where bullying of staff and the public is rife. Anyone who complains is treated with total ruthlessness by the management despite the many years of service they may have given to the Agency and to the environment. In 2001 Alan Dalton who was a member of the Agency’s national board sent a 29 page dossier to Michael Meacher, the environment minister outlining cases of stress among employees and poor management practices. In my experience the situation after that time got worse and not better and it would seem continues until the present day."


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (0) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Many Environment Agency Staff Giving Their Support

I've had a fair number of supportive emails from staff still working inside the Environment Agency over recent weeks and months, many of which express their own frustrations and feelings about what I have exposed on Inside the Environment Agency. Two of them have really caught my eye and deserve publishing to show the real length (going on since 2001), breadth and depth of the problems that are occurring inside the EA - if you wish to expose this waste and still protect your job, send drop me a message (I'll keep you anonymous) and also look into the whistle blowing procedure:

-------------------------------------------

My partner came across your site a couple of days ago by accident. I currently work for the EA in XXX XXX in the XXX region and have nearly XX years service with the agency. A lot of your posts and also comments from others sounded all too familiar. I have been having ongoing issues for the last X years culminating in an official grievance and subsequent appeal which got me nowhere apart from added stress and anxiety. The whole situation has made me ill and I have received counselling and have been on antidepressants for about X years now. Needless to say the situation is far from being fully resolved and I feel my only realistic choice is to leave the agency as soon as is practicable, which is really sad as I did used to be fully committed and love my work, however this has been ruined by the present culture at the Agency, although there are still some good people left.

The issues I have personally experienced and witnessed are bullying/harassment, favouritism, abuse of time sheets/flexi/home working and annual leave, extremely poor management (particularly in recent years with disbursed teams and team leaders just not being around), favouritism and unfair recruitment practices in addition to just general laziness and ineffectiveness in many carrying out their duties. I agree with some of the other people's comments that there is a now culture throughout the agency which encourages these practices.

In particular there was a situation where two colleagues in a close personal relationship were promoted to team leader and technical specialist roles in the same team with no effective supervision or procedures in place to ensure that there was no unfairness. They proceeded to bully and harass their own team members and of another team based in the same office and basically made life a misery for everyone. This went on for several years despite the situation being raised by myself and others to various team leaders on a number of occasions; basically complainants were seen as the problem rather than positive action being taken to address the issues.

It is really refreshing to see that you are speaking out against this and hopefully it will encourage more current and ex employees as well as third parties to feel empowered to also report their own experiences. If there is any way I can help please let me know. I would be happy to forward you the details of my grievance and the outcome as I think you will find it interesting reading.

-------------------------------------------

I'm an ex-EA employee (Midland Region) & EA Board Member. Alan Dalton attended the AGM of Unison Midland Branch in March 2000 where he announced that he was appalled at the way that the EA had been ignoring health & safety legislation with regard to the way that staff were being stressed & bullied.

Steve Evans (later sacked for his own good" was at the meeting in March 2000.

Here's link to a report about start of Steve's tribunal where EA's hired solicitor (Robin Bloom) offered large sum to Steve to drop the case & settle out-of-court with confidentiality clause. Steve refused & in Nov 2004 (after EA had lost the 1st tribunal and lost again at appeal in London) Steve attended remedy hearing as he'd won. Dan Slee (Express & Star reporter) & I were only members of public there.

ENDS Report used to give EA hard time when Marek Mayer was alive.

You'll see my name in Alan Dalton's report to Michael Meacher & you might wish to consider having section on your website about Alan Dalton & also about Tribunals & the money spent thereon:


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/sep/12/guardiansocietysupplement10

Burning Issues, 12 Sept 2001

Dalton was appointed to the board of Britain's biggest quango, with its 10,500 workforce, in January 1999 by Meacher to inject new thinking, but says he has failed and attacks a "culture of secrecy and defensiveness". He says the agency has lost its way in its role of cutting air, water and ground pollution.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/dec/16/guardianobituaries

Alan James Patrick Dalton, environmental campaigner, born May 30 1946; died December 11 2003

Environment Agency Report

Just Who Does the Environment Agency Protect?

A Report of Environment Agency Board Member Alan Dalton to The Minister for the Environment - Michael Meacher MP August 2001

Note that Sally Stewart was the person who got the 4-page letter from Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council saying what needed to be done to comply with the law on risk assessment for stress.

Environment Officer sacked for his own good


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (1) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Officer Assessment - subjective recruitment and promotions inside the Environment Agency

With the help of some loyal friends still working inside the Environment Agency and with paperwork I still hold, I will begin exposing some of the highlighted abuses taking place at the Environment Agency. This was never taken up by senior management or HR whilst working there (in fact, it resulted in further bullying and constructive disciplinaries), I can assure my friends and followers that much of what I possess is with the right people now.

Starting off, below is the assessment paperwork for the recruitment of new Environment Officers to the Environment Agency, this same assessment process applies to all roles internally and externally. As you can see, it is very easy for recruiters/promoters (line managers, senior managers) to select out their preferred candidates due to the highly subjective nature of the process. It is also a method for controlling and bullying staff who may disagree with internal politics. The comment boxes typically have one word to one sentence justifying the rating - nothing else.




EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (0) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Natural England and Environment Agency - Uncomfortable Questions

I question why Natural England and the Environment Agency were not combined - could it be because of the uncomfortable questions about the size of the combined organisation:

Body No. of staff Total budget

Natural England 2,291 £199 million1
Environment Agency 11,400 £1.2 billion2

Combined NE/EA 13,691 £1.399 billion

Combined EU EAs* 3,677 £796 million

*Full data in above post - covers German, French, Swedish, Danish and Austrian EAs.

New body would have nearly FOUR times the staffing levels and still almost DOUBLE the budget of the German, French, Danish, Austrian and Swedish Environment Agencies COMBINED* - despite the Danish Environment Agency facing greater flood risks, and despite the other Agencies taking on Energy and Carbon management usually associated with our Department of Energy & Climate Change.

There is a large amount of overlap between the agencies - I know, having worked in a role coordinating some of the overlapping duties. This, of course, is ignoring other bodies with similar overlapping duties.

1  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_England

2  http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1314/hc04/0497/0497.pdf


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgencyWhistleblowerRecruitmentJobs
Permalink · Comments (6) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Guest: Why is our Environment Agency so large?

Stuart has posted an interesting question with some interesting facts comparing our Environment Agency with those in Germany, France and Sweden. Seems our Environment Agency requires as many as ten times more staff than other nation's. I have my own opinions why we need so many more staff to do the same work, some of which have already been expressed here. I will leave you to form your own opinions on the matter.

Here is the comment reposted:

I don't think 15% goes far enough.The fact the Environment Agency claims itself to be the biggest in the Europe says it all. Surely, an organisation whose purpose is solely to protect the environment and defend against floods should not need a workforce of nearly 11,000, especially when other, large nations in Europe are able to deliver the same with less i.e. Germany and France.

English Environment Agency has 11,400 staff ( http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/149356.aspx) - population 53 million

The German Federal Environment Agency has 1,400 staff ( http://www.bmu.de/en/bmu/organisation/federal-authorities/federal-environment-agency/) - population 81 million

The French Environment and Energy Management Agency has 820 staff ( http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/KBaseShow?sort=-1&cid=96&m=3&catid=17614) - population 65 million

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has 530 staff ( http://www.swedishepa.se/About-us/) - population 9.5 million

Any reason why our Environment Agency employs soo many people to do the same work? I think a reasonable size would be around 7,000 and that's being generous.

Edit: Add to the above Denmark's EPA with 450 staff ( http://www.mst.dk/English/About+the+Danish+EPA/EPA_employees/) to a population of 5.6 million, Portuguese Environment Agency with 800 staff ( http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=5&subref=632) to a population of 10.5 million and the Austrian Environment Agency with 477 staff ( http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/en/en_aboutus/fakten_zahlen/) with a population of 8.4 million.

The strange thing is how many additional duties the German, French, Swedish, Danish, Portuguese and Austrian (everything from energy, environment, water, air quality to climate change, sustainable development and more which are usually done by DECC agencies and local councils in this country) take on with the lower number of required staff compared to our Environment Agency.

Side note: the US Environment Protection Agency has 17,000 staff covering the whole of the USA with a population of 313 million ( http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/index.htm).


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulation
Permalink · Comments (11) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Agency job cuts bigger and quicker than expected

Some interesting news in the press about the EA ( http://www.endsreport.com/41255/environment-agency-job-cuts-bigger-and-quicker-than-expected#!).

Seems the message is actually beginning to sink in with ministers. I find it laughable that some of the staff responding to the article believe it will impact their main mission of protecting the environment and human health. As I, and many others have witnessed, there is much scope for restructuring and cost cutting whilst improving the effectiveness for protecting the environment and human health, and protecting against flood. Glad to see some action on reducing the large scale waste and accompanying abuses that I witnessed and worked with.

Done correctly, and in the right areas (particularly regulation), will go a long way in improving the Agency's effectiveness whilst positively aiding the economy. If the ministers would like detailed accounts of where the waste and abuse is taking place with evidence and examples, feel free to get in touch. Although many of the most important ministers are already in possession of evidence clearly illustrating where and how the waste is perpetuated inside the Environment Agency.

On a side note, it is comforting that many former and existing Environment Agency members are emailing and posting their own experiences along with their support for this blog. As mentioned time and time again, there are many good EA colleagues I have worked with, unfortunately, they are crowded out by the majority who make it intolerable to do the job properly. This, in part, is enforced by a negative culture that impacts people's lives both inside the Environment Agency and those they regulate outside. Will these cuts simply weed out the good staff members, or will it be targeted towards changing the culture and removing those who have abused their roles?


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulation
Permalink · Comments (9) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Poor recruitment, selection and vetting processes

It may not be a surprise to many regular readers and to those in the industry that the Environment Agency possesses a number of poor internal processes. Other than poor management, another poorly designed pillar that contributes to the issues highlighted on this blog is the nature by which the Environment Agency recruits, selects and vets new staff, especially Officers. Considering that the various Officers have a range of powers and unequivical access to sensitive/personal information about those they regulate, you'd expect the recruitment process to be watertight, but you would be wrong.

Recruitment

Starting with the recruitment phase. Once an application is submitted online, your application is distributed among the team leaders of the teams looking to recruit. They get to "score" your application on a number of criteria the job role requires. This is highly subjective and there is no peer review process. If you are shortlisted, you'll be invited to attend interviews and role play. Here's where the fun really starts. It is joked about how despite the Agency promoting open, honest and equal recruitment processes through its use of criteria based selection processes, it is highly abused by those that carry them out (team leaders mainly). They will "encourage" their chosen favourite candidates to give the right answer, going as far as telling them what to say to score higher, whereas those they least favour will not receive this encouragement - in some instances, it has been joked about how these recruiters intentionally misinterpret those candidates answers to give a lower score.

The same is true for the role play. If you are favoured for one reason or another, they will go easier on you and help you score high, if you are disliked or unfavoured, they will go harder on you so that they are able to score you lower.

This is how, despite receiving government funding with the caveat of having open and fair recruitment policies, they are able to be "very" selective of who makes the cut.

Selection

These scores are then passed back to the team leaders that are recruiting. Sometimes the same team leaders who carried out the recruitment will sift through the selection. Selection is based mainly on the scores achieved during the interviews and role plays (see the clever trick here). Once chosen, you'll be contacted and informed, asked to provide references and to get your own basic CRB check done through Disclosure Scotland.

Vetting

Here is the funny part of the process. References are obtained by email. They are to cover three years of your work/education history. Some unsavoury characters with blemish work histories who are friends with team leaders provide false references and work history and provide an email address they have access to for referencing, so that they can "satisfactorily" complete the referencing process. Some candidates do this anyway (makes you wonder what they are covering up). HR simply send out a standard reference form by email to these, and all the candidates simply do is print off the reference form, complete and fax/scan back. First check done.

The basic CRB from Disclosure Scotland is even simpler - they want to check for unspent convictions (doesn't matter if you have anything pending, have been convicted of fraud, theft or assualt, as long as it was 5 years ago). If you are currently being charged with something, don't worry, it won't show up for a while - hence it won't be on your basic CRB certificate. Changing your address history will also muddle up the results, as the CRB relies on the PNC and local police files. Different police form = no files. This straight from the people I worked with and for!

So, hey presto - you could be a convicted fraudster, have been sacked from every job you have ever had, but you've just passed the recruitment, selection and vetting process. Welcome to the Environment Agency, you will soon have your warrant with far reaching powers, and access to sensitive and personal information.

In fact, I know that the basic CRB has now been shifted so that you don't even need this prior to starting the job - so effectively, vetting has eased up further.

Now I ask you this, for a government funded organisation, with such stringent powers, senstive systems, ease of fraud/bribery, does this first step into such a powerful position reflect well on the Agency? Would you expect this of the police force? Would you expect this of any government organisation employing people in such positions?

You want to know why the Environment Agency and its staff behave the way they do - here is a large part of that answer. The system is rigged from the start to favour like minded people, where the recruitment process is abused and where the vetting is not fit for purpose.


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulation
Permalink · Comments (10) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Environment Agency acting as judge, jury and executioner!

In a recent motion before the House of Lords, the Earl of Shrewsbury Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, made an extremely bold, inspiring and thought provoking speech when he raised serious concerns about the Environment Agency acting as judge, jury and executioner! Read full here.

Permalink · Comments (11) · Tweet



Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Bribes, favouritisms and conflicting interests inside the Environment Agency

Over at the Avoncliff Blog, a recent article has gained my interest prompting me to share my experience of the conflicts of interest, favouritism and bribery that takes place inside the EA.

The first two are very common, the later is rare, but does occur, despite what the Agency says.

There have been occasions during my time inside the Environment Agency where I have witnessed conflicts of interest. For example, there are a number of Officers and permitting staff who have accepted money to complete permit applications on behalf of external people/organisations in direct conflict with their duties. I know of six occasions in 2012 alone that this has happened. This is frowned upon by management, but is not actively discouraged or investigated. This could be the cause of the mix up with Avoncliff et al's licensing escapade.

Further conflicts of interest come by due to the perverse nature of the promotion model used internally. Every Officer needs to present a case that they prosecuted or evidence that they turned around a poor performing site in order to gain promotion to the next stage - finding such examples to present for promotion are rare, so "constructive" prosecutions regularly take place with backing from fellow Officers with the idea that if they help one out, it will be reciprocated when the other looks for their next promotion opportunity. I have eluded to this before in this blog, whereby Officers will give conflicting information to an unsuspecting permit holder in the hopes that the operator breaches their permit. Other Officers give poor advice simply because of poor training. Either case, the operator receives the flack and pays the fine when such mistakes are found, whilst the Officer producing the case gains recognition for doing good to protect the environment. When reading some of the recent prosecutions by the Agency, keep in mind that a proportion have come about due to unfortunate circumstances and could have been prevented with proper advice i.e. certain Officers doing their job properly.

Favouritism is even more common, as many of the Officers work in the areas they are responsible for. It is common for Officers to socialise outside of work with the licencees (various permit holders) and people running the organisations that they regulate. As mentioned previously in this blog, if you're not on some of these Officers favourite list, but happen to be in their "I don't like you" list, you're in big trouble - this is likely the current state of affairs for Avoncliff. Of course, if you happen to be good buddies with your Officer outside of work, then it is common that you will get more leeway in what you can do and get away with - as I have witnessed first-hand whilst working there. Despite making several reports to management, no action was ever taken to resolve these issues.

The much less common, but still under investigated is bribery. Management do state a big no-no to this, but in 2012, I am aware of two Officers accepting money from a permit holder (by their own admission) for information on a key competitor in the area. Those Officers are still working there in the same capacity.

I know that line management do not like to raise alarm or investigate these issues, because it a) is embarrassing and effects their promotion prospects, b) is controversial and c) don't want to rock the boat i.e. "why let a few bad apples spoil the barrel".


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgency
Permalink · Comments (1) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

3 Cars, 8 Environment Officers, 1 Meter

So, apologies for the delay in recent posts. With recent workload (with a competent organisation) and with the tribunal, I am quiet restricted in how much I can post and what I can disclose at this stage. My hopes are that once things settle down, I can begin posting more insights and uploading scanned copy of notes made during my time with the Environment Agency.

Today, however, I happened to bump in to almost a dozen of ex-colleagues, and it seems it's "business as usual" a the Environment Agency. After a little conversing and cajouling (they had instructions not to speak with me), it seems the 8 Officers (along with their 3 vehicles) were out in my neck of the woods to take a reading from a flow meter. Seems the 5 so called experienced Environment Officers (I've worked with them and would say that is a stretch, no matter how many years they claim), were showing the 3 new Environment Officers how to read a meter.

I know that if this had been an incident, the Environment Agency would be able to charge back for each one of those Officer's time under the Water Resources Act which at around £194 per hour for each "experienced" Officer could cost a tidy sum. Wise use of resources?


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgency
Permalink · Comments (3) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Epic Incompetence and Failure inside the Environment Agency

Avoncliff mills have posted an insightful article about their own experiences with ex-colleagues.

You can read it here at  http://avoncliffmills.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/just-epic-self-evident-incompetence-and.html


EnvironmentAgencyDefraUKFloodingEnvironmentalWasteEnvironmentPermitPermittingRegulationEnvironmentAgency
Permalink · Comments (5) · Tweet


Inside the Environment Agency December 2013 - Reporting Internal Abuse and Waste

Pareto Principle and the Environment Agency

The EA is the exemplar of the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule), whereby 80% of the workforce is content to laze in front of their machines whilst listening to music, spend work time shopping and visiting friends, attend limitless meetings on beauroucratic drivel covering important topics from uncleaniness of work desks to catching up on gossip and deciding where to drink after work. The remaining 20% are hardworking, ambitious and trustworthy individuals that out of necessity hide this flare to avoid the wrath of their less competent colleagues for showing them up. Unfortunately, this endemic disease infects all levels of management and staff leading to an ineffective, confusing and inconsistent regulator that impacts the lives of many hardworking people outside the organisation as discussed in previous posts.

A cure to this horrific disease is to pry open the EA for guts and glory to be seen in order that this tumor can be removed, because that's what it is, an abnormal growth that has been allowed to foster and grow over the past two decades. Only once this has been done can a more effective, consistent and able regulatory body come to the front allowing the 20% of the passionate and inspirational individuals to lead without fear of reprisals.

Perhaps this is a far off dream, but I will continue to educate and promote this with fellow patrons until the right outcome is achieved.