The First 100 days of Bernard Grech: Controlling and assessing actions.

Part eight

In the first 100 days, the electorate expected to see actions executed with discipline and rigour. These actions had to be chosen according to a set of priorities. One asks oneself whether any action plan was ever taken into consideration.  

For the sake of argument let’s assume that an action plan was in place, the fact remains that nobody has ever heard of it. It is pertinent at this stage to ask whether Dr. Bernard Grech has been through his plan of action ticking off the boxes in the hope that he managed to find at least a few to mark.

It is also pertinent to ask whether certain situations are under control and working with a measure of success. How is the parliamentary group doing? Is participation being monitored? In the last parliamentary group meeting, half of the members failed to turn up. Is this an indication that there are problems? Is the leader on speaking terms with all the MPs? Does he feel confident enough to call the group his group of representatives or is he still not certain of their confidence in him?

As mentioned in a previous blog, many directors have been engaged. Who is monitoring their work and incidentally, what are they actually meant to be doing? Are they meant to come up with new ideas or is it just a question of a repeat run of the mill?   Is their success being gauged on how many times they pay a visit to the leader’s office? Since these directors are actually being remunerated, the party members expect and have a right to be informed about what has been achieved or otherwise so far.  

Dr Grech continuously told us, during his campaign, that he will be hitting the ground and running because he already knew what he wanted to achieve. Taking Dr. Grech to task on this, can he enlighten us whether his initial plan of action has materialised in the first 100 days in office, if at all? Have his emergency measures been encapsulated in the running of the Party so as to secure improved results in the near future?

All these can only be assessed on the type of information that will be syphoned to the members. All active members within the party need to see concrete results. If the Party is ready to give its members a breakdown of what has actually been going on throughout this 100-day timeframe, then all the members would feel more confident.

According to a number of MPs and their acolytes, the tools used by the previous leader were faulty, so it goes without saying that the current leader has been asked or has taken it upon himself to adopt different tools, different methodology and/or different direction. Has he? No doubt, his actions have to improve before one can even say they are more than adequately effective.

Can the fully paid members get to know what are the different steps being implemented to achieve better results? Or, as promised, build-up a measured vision to achieve eventual success? The paid members of the Nationalist Party form a very important part of the stakeholders. They need to know how things are progressing. They don’t need to know the nitty gritty of all situations but some feedback is needed so that they can be in a position to evaluate the much promised and much awaited progress.

What do members expect from the new leadership in order to be able to understand whether the Party is under control? Since the financial situation has been given so much importance, members need to be informed as to the true financial situation of the party before the party declares bankruptcy. Also, since so many new jobs have been created, members need to know the operating costs of running the Party and its media. The leader must be accountable to the party members. And above all, members need to be given sufficient information to be able to gauge the Party’s added value that is being generated within the party, if any at all. Members need to know whether memberships and donations have actually increased and require audited proof. They need to know what actions have been taken by the new administration in this regard as well as whether the loyalty of key individuals within the party has been strengthened or otherwise.

It is also important that members know whether the executive members have changed their tune and are not being so impulsive, angry, agitated and vociferous as was the case during Dr. Adrian Delia’s tenure. Has any action been suggested and / or implemented? From the looks of things nothing has been done.

It is imperative that the administration in place comes clean. This would help members assess the current situation in the party. It’s easy for a leader and his staff to pride themselves on their achievements yet shy from releasing the information required to enable members to judge for themselves. Such reluctance and self-praise has never led to anywhere. The members of the party remain the major stakeholders. They are the persons who turn to the leader for inspiration. It is for this reason that members listen to what their leader has to say and what are the messages he wishes to convey. It remains to be seen whether the stakeholders are being given sufficient relevant information to consolidate their confidence in their new leader.

Leave a Reply