SENIOR civil servants who will be responsible for implementing the new Strategic Management Initiative (SMI) say the proposals are fundamentally flawed.
A union leader said the new system would make department secretaries responsible for executive functions. They would "for all practical purposes" be the minister's boss.
Delegates to the annual conference of the Association of Higher Civil Servants (AHCS) voted unanimously at the weekend to seek major changes in the SMI.
Denying they were either "revolutionaries" or "luddites", delegates said the changes would make civil servants less accountable.
They also criticised the SMI for undermining the "team work" which had been the bedrock for quality and impartiality in the Civil Service.
It threatened to bring some of the worst aspects of private management into the public service.
But the most criticised proposal was the plan to separate the powers of ministers and secretaries of Government departments. These were unconstitutional and could be challenged in the courts, according to many delegates.
On Saturday the general secretary, Mr Sean O'Riordain said the association "supports reasonable and practical strategic change in the Civil Service" and had put forward its own detailed proposals for strategic reform four years ago.
It wanted more devolution of authority and a more public oriented culture.
However, it was now proposed to make department secretaries responsible for executive functions, while ministers would only be responsible for policy.
In the new system "the secretary, for all practical purposes, would be the boss," Mr O'Riordain said.
Every speaker criticised the Government and departmental secretaries for a lack of consultation with the AHCS.
Apart from one meeting and a video presentation, they had what Mr Tom Power of the AHCS executive described as "a good example of Civil Service frugality and secrecy."
He warned that "any implementation programme that does not involve direct negotiations - and I emphasise negotiations - with this association, will prove very difficult to implement".
He doubted if political power could realistically be divested from ministers to secretaries.
He said: "Given the short political horizons governments work to, executive power is politically superior to the more remote power of policy determination".
The union should seek the views of political scientists and constitutional lawyers on the issue.
Mr Sean Aylward, proposing the emergency motion on behalf of the executive, said they were not "luddites", but the management proposals represented "the death, knell of principal officers' positions in the name of progress.
Traditionally AHCS representatives had "always had direct access to department secretaries, and in extremis, the Ministers", he said.
"We don't want to lose that access. Often it was that access to the minister, or threat of it, that clinched what we wanted to get."
Several speakers questioned some of the concepts in the SMI. Mr Eamon Corcoran of the Department of Health criticised the notion of considering members of the public as "customers".
He said: "If you don't like how you are treated as a customer by Dunnes Stores, you can move to another store. If you don't like how you are treated by the Revenue Commissioners you can't take, your business elsewhere."
Many delegates were also concerned that new, private sector type practices such as performance related pay would break up the team work practices that characterised the Civil Service.
Mr Paddy Banks, who represented AHCS members in An Post, said that since it had become a semi state company it had become "arbitrary and authoritarian".
Management had been characterised by "exhibitions of extreme careerism, no long term commitment and abiding contempt for the rule of law," Mr Banks said.
Ms Lorraine Benson, also from Enterprise and Employment, expressed concern about the impact pay related performances might have on employment and equality in the Civil Service.
"If merit money is meted out for unpaid overtime, it discriminates against people who have to leave work because of family responsibilities," because they were parents or carers for sick or ageing relatives.