asked the Taoiseach with regard to advertising by the Local Appointments Commission, closing date 7 February 1985 for the filling of vacancies for the post of senior planner and senior executive planner, if he will give the following information in the cases of the latter:— (1) the number of people interviewed for vacancies related to that closing date; (2) the criteria used in selecting candidates for interview; (3) the number of vacancies originally advertised and the number of those filled; (4) if the commission or interview board formed a panel and (a) if so, the number of applicants informed of this and (b) if not, the reason; (5) when the Meath County Council post was rejected in the multiple choice situation, how it came about that another candidate was found to fill the vacancy while in the case of Cork County Council the post had to be readvertised; (6) of the remaining candidates, if they were rated and who had the highest rating of that group; (7) if the commission can give an estimate of the cost of: (i) the original advertising; (ii) the readvertising costs and (iii) the related cost of forming an interview board; (8) if the process now in operation renders it pointless for the unsuccessful candidates already interviewed to reapply for this vacancy; (9) if there will be a new interview board in this case; (10) the qualifications of the original board; (11) the qualifications of the new board; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Written Answers. - Local Appointments Commission Procedure.
Posts as senior planner, senior executive planner, senior executive (planning) and executive planner were advertised on 16 January 1985 with closing date of 7 February.
I presume that the Deputy is referring to the vacancies for senior executive (planning) under Cork, Wexford and Meath County Councils the interviews for which were held in April 1985. The reply is as follows:
(1) 43.
(2) All applicants who were prima facie eligible under the prescribed qualifications were called for interview.
(3) Three vacancies were originally advertised and a person has been recommended for appointment to the vacancy in Wexford. Another applicant is under consideration for appointment to the post in Meath and the vacancy in Cork has been readvertised.
(4), (6) The results of interview boards are treated in confidence in deference to those who give their services for this work and candidates are simply told whether their applications are successful or unsuccessful.
(5) Some of the successful candidates had not applied for all three vacancies. In addition, some of those considered for appointment opted for posts elsewhere on the results of another competition. As a result no candidate remained who had applied for the Cork vacancy.
(7) (i) The cost of the original advertisement of the three vacancies was £600 approximately; (ii) The cost of re-advertising the Cork post was £450 approximately; (iii) The cost of the interviews for the three vacancies in question was £800 approximately excluding staff and advertising costs.
(8) The result of a forthcoming interview cannot be anticipated but the fact that persons had competed unsuccessfully on a previous occasion would not in any way militate against them.
(9, 10, 11) It is not the practice to give information regarding the constitution of forthcoming interview boards; but all interview boards include at least two persons with qualifications in the discipline concerned.