In three submissions to DN, it has been claimed by Staffan Eriksson, Eva Neveling and Richard Almgren respectively that the series surrounding Anna Kinberg Batra’s recruitment as governor in Stockholm is nothing more than “a storm in a glass”, to quote Eriksson.
Richard Almgren writes that “fearful plant managers are the last thing Sweden needs”. Most people probably agree on that. Another thing that most people seem to agree on is that managers in the public, tax-funded sector should follow the rules of the form of government, for example the rules about objectivity and impartiality when filling a position.
Almgren believes that the many qualified people who are part of Kinberg Batra’s network should not be disqualified as applicants for top government jobs. It may seem a somewhat strange line of reasoning since they are in no way disqualified. The only difference is that Kinberg Batra needs to report the connection between them to ensure that they do not receive advantages in relation to other applicants.
These three writers pressing different variations on the theme that other managers in other workplaces have most certainly done similar things. Three examples: “Kinberg Batra does not seem to have made any direct departures from the regulations in recruitment. That’s exactly how you do it in both business and politics” (Almgren). “How many governors would pass such a thorough investigation of work methods and employment matters without being questioned on any point?” (Neveling). And “misrecruitment most likely occurs far and wide in our overgrown jungle of authorities” (Eriksson).
It is difficult to see these reasonings as anything other than examples of relativization, where one tries to divert attention by pointing to the wrongful or immoral actions of others. Of course, all other authorities’ potentially questionable actions must be scrutinized with the same accuracy as in the current case. Now, however, it is about Kinberg Batra and not anyone else.
She has made three (very) questionable recruitments. A close friend who was the only applicant for the job of head of planning, which was advertised with a note in reception. An organizational developer where the position was never advertised (the county board’s explanation is that the employment was limited to four months), where Kinberg Batra helped the person in question write a book. And finally a third person, where the position was actually advertised. The problem in this case was that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the position (unlike several of the other applicants) and, despite this, the person was one of the few who was called for a final interview directly with Kinberg Batra.
As I understood it even in this case there was a personal connection. And in addition to this, the governor is said to have bought out a senior manager at the county board for millions for no apparent reason. With this in mind, I can only agree with the majority of other contributors (including Eva Walther Elfgren, Anders Hedman, Bengt Sundell and Marianne Hamilton), who argue that Kinberg Batra should resign.
If it had been a governor with a social democratic background (or – God forbid! – a leftist or environmentalist) would the three writers mentioned above have argued with the same commitment that the governor should remain in office then?
More about submitters: This is how you write on submitters and replies
More submitters: dn.se/insandare
Tags: Answer Wrong downplay Kinberg Batras inexcusable actions
