8.
CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 -
機密
Many heads of departments submitted that their departments should
be moved to another group, so we carefully re-examined the grouping of all
departments. We also noted that the introduction of the rank of Secretary
had altered the responsibility, certainly in policy terms, of some heads
of departments. It became evident that the present Group I departments
must retain that standing and that no Group II department warrants upgrading
to Group I. We could not accept, after long deliberation, any of the
requests for upgrading Group III departments to Group II, though it was
again evident that within Group III the range of departments is wider
than in the other groups. This led us to look closely at the possibility
of creating a fourth group of departments by a sub-division of Group III,
but we eventually decided against it. We recommend no changes in the
grading of heads of departments.
(b) Deputy directors
9.
It was suggested to us that the grading of deputy directors
of Group III departments (D3) did not adequately reflect the responsibilities
of such posts vis-a-vis the directors (D6) and assistant directors (D2).
It was also suggested that in Group I departments there may be a case for
realigning relativities where there is a need for a single deputy
director. In order to consider these issues we examined the duties
and responsibilities of deputy directors and analysed the organisational
structures of all departments, a study which necessarily comprised levels
other than just the deputies.
10.
Differing organisational requirements dictate the way in which
deputy directors function, but we identified two main types:
(i)
those who effectively run the department on a day-to-day basis,
leaving the director to concentrate largely on external matters
and relationships; and important policy or statutory matters;
CONFIDENTIAL #ii)