Dear Editor,
Informed sources wish to express appreciation of SN’s very instructive editorial of January 3, 2011 commenting on appointments to the reportedly established Guyana Livestock Development Authority (GLDA).
We sincerely hope that in the first instance the newly appointed Chairman has informed himself of his responsibilities to the new organisation in order to satisfy himself of his availability to dedicate the required time and energy to the tasks as envisaged in the act. Just as a matter of ready convenience to the incumbent and compliant politicians, some of these are quoted below:
“10. (1) The Authority shall meet at least once every month for the transaction of its business at the place and time and on the days as the Board may determine.
(2) The Chairperson shall, within seven days of his receipt of a requisition in writing addressed to him by four or more Directors, summon a special meeting to consider the matters contained in the requisition.
(3) The Chairperson shall preside over all the meetings of the Authority and in his absence, the Directors present shall elect one of them to preside over that meeting.
(4) Where the Chairperson is unable to perform the functions of his office owing to his absence from Guyana or inability for any special reason, the Minister may appoint any Director to act as Chairperson during the time such absence or inability continues.
(5) The Chairperson or in his absence the Director elected or appointed to preside under this section and five other Directors shall form a quorum.”
Apart from the above, the Chairman can reasonably be expected to oversee, and be accountable for, the appointment of “as many officers, advisers, experts, consultants or employees as is considered necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions,” in addition to responding “to the general or special directions as the Minister may give… from time to time.” (Section 11(1) of the act).
Next, Section 16(2) of the act sets out twenty-five specific areas of activity which the GLDA must undertake under the control and direction of the chairperson. Seven of them listed below provide only a small example of the range of programmes for which the chairperson of the authority will be held accountable:
“16. (2) In relation to the tasks referred to in subsection (1), the Authority shall be responsible for –
(a) preparing plans and undertaking or causing to be undertaken studies to determine the economic, technical or other feasibility;
(b) presenting any schemes to the Minister for his approval;
(c) implementing and executing any schemes approved by the Minister;
(d) participating in national or international fairs and exhibitions;
(e) managing, on behalf of the Minister, any supportive programme;
(f) administering, on behalf of the Minister, any supportive programme;
(g) promoting and guiding the formation of co-operatives.”
The above of course does not take into account the requirement in Sections 27 and 28 of the act to prepare annual reports and budgets, respectively.
It is for those politicians who acquiesced to the passing of the act (presumably without reading it) to review the capacity of the first appointed chairperson in particular, to examine and evaluate, to his/her satisfaction, the efficacy of all the systems, procedures and standards to be instituted for a new organisation that must address (according to the act) such issues as: licensing; conditions for storage of livestock or livestock product, transportation of same, display, marketing import and export requirements, among others.
The above apart, we are advised by the now former Permanent Secretary, and new Chief Executive Officer of the authority, in a letter to SN of December 30, 2010 that Section 5(1) of the act relating to ‘Composition of the Board’ “has been complied with in all aspects.” This clearly indicates that identifiable directors have been appointed, and that the non-publication of their identities is by no means a “clandestine” activity.
With great respect it would have been most helpful for citizens to be assured that such compliance included, as provided in Section 10 (11), “the names of Directors of the Board as first constituted and every other change in the constitution of the Board shall be published in the Gazette.”
It is to be noted that the act defines ‘Director’ as including the chairperson.
It is also notable that the establishment of the authority as ‘a body corporate’ must be gazetted. The date of this notification would be useful.
So far as the Chief Executive Officer is concerned, Section 6(1) of the act requires the following:
“6. (1) The Chief Executive Officer shall –
(a) be a full-time officer of the Authority unless the Minister directs otherwise;
(b) perform the duties as may be specified or as may be assigned to him by the Authority;
(c) be directly responsible to the Board in the discharge of his functions;
(2) The Chief Executive Officer shall be assisted in his functions by such of the officers and employees of the Authority as the Board may, on the recommendations of the Chairperson, direct.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall be paid such remuneration as the Board may determine.”
Certainly the indications are that the board would have been appointed at the same time as the chairperson. How therefore is its non-announcement justified, particularly since it must have met at least to decide “such remuneration” as to be paid the chief executive officer, and indeed all other “employees”?
Quite dutifully, but erroneously, the then PS, Ministry of Agriculture stated in his letter the “GLDA has retained all staff from the Livestock Services of the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Dairy Development Programme (NDDP) and the Livestock Division of the National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI).”
Obviously a new organisation cannot ‘retain’ staff of other organisations. It will have to ‘employ’ staff in a process that will include a form of transition – as reasonably provided for in Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the act as quoted below:
“11. (1) The Authority may appoint as many officers, advisers, experts, consultants or employees as it considers necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions on the terms and conditions as it may deem fit, subject to the general or special directions as the Minister may give to it from time to time.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), on and from the commencement of this Act, all officers and employees of the Department, Division and Programme shall be deemed to be officers and employees of the Authority.” There can be no dispute that amongst the implications arising from the above that the Public Service Commission must be consulted to agree and initiate the transition of identified public servants from their current employment to the new entity; which in turn must issue appropriate letters of ‘appointment’; and nextly that the relevant representative ‘union,’ if any, “may be allowed to take part in any discussion in the meeting of the Authority relating to that purpose without the right to vote.”
Just when did all the above happen?
Already at January 1, 2011, it seems that the first Chairman has much to account for, to several easily identifiable stakeholders, including those related to his substantive incumbency.
Informed sources sincerely hope that this project is not another sleight of hand, and worse of foot and mouth.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
