A year on from Brendan Howlin’s publication of guidelines on how people are appointed to State boards, the directors themselves seem a little happier with how these positions are advertised. And if anyone should be happy, they should.

A survey of 77 State board directors published by the Institute of Directors (IoD) this week found distinctly less scepticism towards the process than a similar study conducted in 2012.

In the new survey, 70 per cent said they thought the process of appointments to State boards was “fair and transparent”, compared with just 26 per cent who thought so in 2012. The proportion of directors and executives who don’t believe vacancies are advertised widely enough has dropped from 64 per cent to 27 per cent.

But room for improvement remains, the IoD’s report shows. Advertising positions is one thing, choosing the winners is another. “A number of respondents indicated concerns about the level of fairness and transparency in the final stages of the process, specifically at the point when the shortlist of candidates is provided by the Public Appointments Service to the relevant Minister for consideration,” it notes.

In 2014, the appointment of then Fine Gael Seanad byelection candidate John McNulty (pictured) to the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art by Minister for Arts Heather Humphreys generated (wholly avoidable) controversy as it emerged McNulty had not applied for the role (from which he then resigned).

Such rookie errors are unlikely to be made by Ministers again – it doesn’t take much planning, after all, to encourage their man or woman for the job to apply under the advertised procedures.

The ministerial hand certainly remains active. Some 41 per cent of the directors said they were appointed to their State board position following a direct approach by a Minister or his/her representative.

Cynics might say the “it’s not what you know but who you know” rule still applies.