Postal services fined again over inefficiencies
THE POSTAL Services’ Department has been fined for failing to reach its qualitative goals – despite keeping on more staff than necessary.
The department’s shortcomings were underlined in Auditor-general Chrystalla Yorkadji’s 2006 report, which found a number of problems in the department’s efforts to improve its service.
Furthermore, post offices around the island have for months been operating without a head of department. While the position was announced in time, the Public Service Committee only called around 30 candidates for interviews last week.
Since the deputy head of the Department retired last March, it has been run by a high official at the Communications Ministry, who hasn’t been able to offer 100 per cent due to the extra workload she has to deal with.
In her 2006 report, Yorkadji referred to a technical and economic study, which found that the operation of the Automated Sorting System should have enabled the delivery of 90 per cent of mail in Cyprus within 24 hours and the remaining 10 per cent within 48 hours. This would at the same time reduce staff by 47 persons.
Recent studies to examine the effectiveness of the postal system showed that even though there had been an improvement in the delivery of mail, the aforementioned aims had not been reached. In addition, the number of employees sorting mail had not been reduced.
Based on these findings, the Commissioner of Electronic Communication and Post Offices imposed a £50,000 fine due to the Postal Department’s inefficiency. A £2,000 fine was also imposed for the six-month delay in implementing the new logistical system.
Yorkadji also refers to the purchase of a stamp-sticking machine in 1998, which cost the state £52,000 and has never been used due to technical problems. The Auditor-general called on the manufacturing company to take the machine and return its value, which has not yet happened.
This prompted the Legal Services into filing a suit at the District Court in 2002 against the businessman. But the court rejected the case as the payment had been made directly to the manufacturer and this firsthand contact reversed the co-contractor’s responsibility.
