Dear Editor,
Those who would have been attended by, and at the same time, have attended to the vagaries of the physical (and indeed mental) health of our ‘patient’ society, must at times be concerned as to whether the relevant decision-makers have been informed with sufficiently precise analyses to arrive at conclusions regarding the fault lines perceived in the public sector, and therefore to formulate equally precise solutions.
A concern by no means peculiar to the health sector, and specifically the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation is that, like too many old, new and revamped organisations, there is the absence of well-articulated structures which facilitate the consistent observance of productive reporting relationships.
There are, amongst others, two possible reasons for this deficit:
- a) the lack of correct behaviour models at the higher governance level;
- b) insufficient acquaintance with relevant literature on organisational management, moreso in the absence of substantive related experience.
Also relevant is the familiarity required with whatever legislation, and related rules and procedures, that should guide the efficacious functioning of the organisation.
So that it is hardly enough to appoint a board, commission or committee membership without ensuring that they are adequately briefed as a team first; and of their individual roles, next.
What is obviously critically important is the role of leadership, sometimes invested in chairmanship – but a position that should always demand respect for its sapiential and moral authority.
It is in this context therefore that there may be pause for some to be apprehensive of the more recent appointments to the management leadership of the Ministry of Public Health, and that of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation, respectively.
In the first place, it would be surprising if any of the incumbents would have had prior information of how this former public service institution was legally transitioned into a corporation, and consequently, would have been sensitive to the conundrum which obtains in its having continually being treated as a ‘Budget Agency’. (One must as ask which other Budget Agency is managed by a board).
Actually, the records would show that the configuration of a corporation was the result of a series of recommendations out of a donor-funded overseas consultancy, whose mandate was to formally disaggregate the Ministry of Health from its direct oversight of the Georgetown Public Hospital.
As it turned out, it was this mis-application of the relevant recommendation that projected the image of a corporation, while mischievously retaining it as a substantive ‘public service’ operation. This conundrum of organisational structuring was exacerbated by the uninformed posturings of successive ministerial combatants, who insisted that they were authorised, and worse, equipped, to ‘micro-manage’.
In light of the foregoing, the latest intervention may have provided further cause for alarm, in that two major successors have been announced, whose respective experiences are not necessarily publicly known as able to bring the related wealth needed to fill the vacuum of management capability which so desperately obtains in the public health sector.
Far from being an aspersive commentary, the concern here is to stress the need for appreciating that, at this juncture, our public organisations in particular have little option, but to function in a manner that must satisfy international standards; raise performance levels; and re-establish the confidence of its clients in the services they are required to render.
At the same time, given the more recent disconnections between the two predecessor management groupings, it behooves the incumbent Minister to publicly display more confidence in the very team now appointed.
Surely the linen (of authority) in the health sector should be kept as clean as possible, and not again be washed publicly.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
