The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has welcomed the government’s announcement that it will likely revisit appointments to various state boards, following the criticisms about their ethnic and gender imbalance.
Governance Minister Raphael Trotman on Wednesday admitted that the process was rushed and signaled that the appointments made public would likely be reviewed as well as the guidelines for selection.
“The willingness on the part of the government to acknowledge deficiencies of the original procedure and to take on board civic criticism is refreshing. This bodes well for a more productive dialogue between the governmental and non-governmental sectors, both on this and other governance issues,” the GHRA Executive Committee said in a statement issued yesterday.
The GHRA had led public criticisms about the composition of the boards, which it called an “affront” to women in light of the fact that women made up only 18% of the membership for 20 out of the 32 boards that were announced. There were 22 women appointed out of the 125 appointments, with one of them appointed to serve on three boards and another on two. In its statement yesterday, the GHRA commended the announced decision to re-visit selection guidelines for membership on state boards.
In addition to the adjustments for ethnic and gender balance, the GHRA also recommended that the opportunity provided by the review also takes into account a number of other factors determining whether these mechanisms are ‘fit for purpose.’
It said, “Too many statutory bodies appear to have drifted from their original purpose, namely, providing civic oversight and direction of a particular public sector activity.”
It added, “Hopefully, under the more conducive procedures being considered, civil society will evolve to the point where it can play a role, not only in advising on selection, but also on monitoring the performance of the non-institutional members of State Boards. A more vibrant civil society could consider creating mechanisms for some form of feed-back from civic representatives to a civic forum, thereby socializing to some degree the representational function away from its current image of being entirely private or personal.”
According to the GHRA, the central criterion for selection should be a track record of public service, particularly in the area that falls under the purview of the particular board. It added that traditionally a seat on a state board is too frequently seen as a reward for political activists and supporters of ruling parties. “This is indefensible where appointees do not possess the minimum qualifications to justify selection, as frequently happens. The more difficult case, however, is where the appointee is technically qualified but has an alliance or support for the ruling party, sufficiently vibrant as to negate his or her ability to play an impartial role,” it said, while noting that a State Board comprising a majority of committed opponents would be equally dysfunctional as one of committed supporters.
Among the issues it also identified for prompt action is the reduction of the disparities in remuneration for service on state boards and statutory authorities.
“Apart from inherent fairness, a standard form of remuneration for members of State Boards would also help decontaminate selection and acceptance from inappropriate financial considerations. Reportedly, disparities in current remuneration are alarming and in some cases compromise independence,” it said, while suggesting a common criterion in relation to remuneration that should aim to cover realistic expenditure.
