The Armed Forces has obviously not handled all notification cases satisfactorily. By handling, I mean the procedure from a case has been notified, processed and until it has possibly had a consequence for the person notified. It is especially the latter, the consequence, where the gap is too large between the Armed Forces’ reaction and what is perceived as reasonable by the whistleblower and the public. I understand that Simen Berge Størkersen in his article in Ytring thinks it is difficult to comprehend and impossible to accept that only a written warning is an adequate reaction to the relationship he mentions. The recent media coverage has given the impression that it has little or no consequence, even if you are warned repeatedly and it turns out that there is a reprehensible situation. The impression is that officers cover each other and that it is the person who gives notice who either has to quit or find another job. This should not be the case, and it may seem quite toothless to initiate an external investigation of the warning institute in the Armed Forces. But it is obviously necessary that we have an impartial review of how the notification cases are handled. Responsible management cannot be based solely on the media’s description of reality. However, this is only part of the job. Based on the reactions, it seems clear that the Armed Forces’ practice regarding the reactions in such cases is in conflict with the general legal opinion. Then there is probably something wrong with our practice. For example, it is clear to many of us that when an officer puts pressure on a subordinate to make the person give a false statement to the police for the purpose of concealing a criminal offense for which he is convicted, there is good reason to go to farewell case. This has nothing to do with double punishment, the punishment applies to the offense – the dismissal is a consequence of gross violations of disciplinary and professional ethical frameworks. At other times, however, it may be privacy or labor law conditions that cause cases to have an outcome that the public does not perceive as reasonable, but where the Armed Forces cannot go into the details of a personnel case. The defense leadership assesses what is a reasonable consequence in such cases. Should an employee who has received several warnings about sexual harassment and where objectionable conditions have been found, still have personnel responsibilities? What about promotion? How long will the case have consequences – one year? Five? Always? The Armed Forces has not been consistent in such cases, and we must improve there. We must also improve our personnel system so that information about warnings, sexual harassment and bullying follows the personnel through the service within what the legislation allows. Then it is easier to see if it is a pattern or a one-off case, and the possibility that misunderstood collegiality will lead to immersion in the cases becomes less. The Armed Forces has acknowledged that there has been a difference between life and learning in these conditions. It cannot continue if we are to trust each other and society must have confidence that we will fulfill our mission – every day. Follow the debate:
ttn-69
Learning to get better – Speech
