Dear Editor,
There are some parties now almost irreversibly fastened on the horns of a dilemma. It is one of their own making; and regardless of how the issue finalizes, one side or the other will be gored. The matter at hand involves the CEO of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC), its oversight Board (especially the chairman), the Hon. Minister of Health, and now the cabinet. This is how I see this whole now sorry affair.
First, the repeated public postures and exchanges are counterintuitive, counterproductive, and embarrassing all around. No one and nothing is served well, and particularly the interests of the public.
Second, I am an advocate of transparency in governance, but this is taking things way too far in the public realm, through an almost blow by counter blow account for the enthralled, and the disgusted too. Good sense and discretion have not prevailed, as each side seeks to get the upper hand and the last word though the newest public pronouncement.
Third, it is why I believe that the Hon. Minister and the GPHC chairman both erred through their public utterances, and determination to ventilate (and vent) in the open. I label such management by media, which is inimical to sound decision-making, and does not bode well for harmonious relationships. This is a situation that involves a personnel matter, and hinges on confidentiality, sensitivity, fairness, equitable treatment, possible sanctions, likely politics, and more. There are some issues most suited, and best handled, offline; this is one of them. There the head-butting, arm twisting, eye-gouging, power-brokering, power trips, and sometimes understandings and meeting of the minds can all unfold as aggressively and painfully as the circumstances warrant, with settlement following. Then, and only then, the final resolution should be shared in the public forum. This running acrimonious commentary has to be curtailed. All are wounded, all rendered lesser for it.
Fourth, it has become increasingly clear that the adversarial parties (minister and Board [chairman]) read the same audit report and arrived at diametrically opposed positions. This reminds of General Motors management and the auto workers’ union (the UAW), who would both scrutinize the exact same statistical report and reach very distant points on the same road. Sometimes, it has not been the same road; they were so far apart and bent on the unilateral exercise of will. Simply stated, men look at things and interpret as such suits them, and then focus on putting the best spin and the best show on for public consumption. I believe this is what is happening here with the GPHC matter under review. It is regrettable.
Fifth, and arguably most important, I recall separate government ministers saying on different occasions that this or that issue is one for the relevant board to scrutinize and make a decision. Accordingly, I see no difference here (corporation or not) and recommend that there be no departure from such hitherto noble public postures. Now circumstances have deteriorated so much that they had to be escalated. What does this mean for future compatibility?
Sixth, and in the same vein, I read about this “order” and of the GPHC board not being an “executive” one, and I pause. I must query, therefore, as to what is this board really about? Is it supposed to be a rubberstamping body? A passive one? Does it have any semblance of independence, especially on thorny controversial issues? Or is it one that is subject to the wishes and dictates of the Hon. Minister? If so, then why have this one, or any other one (anywhere) for that matter? I remember one-time Federal Reserve Board chairman Volker and his interest rate hikes that did not find favour with the White House; and Chief Justice Warren and the decisions of his court that met with the same fate. This is what supposedly autonomous boards do. This is how the public’s interests assume primacy.
Seventh, the embattled CEO has his own allies. They have been quiet. But they are observing every development, and monitoring every word and nuance with the proverbial high-powered microscope. Nothing will be missed, and no opportunity overlooked or bypassed to weigh in heavily, given the associated complexions in the mix.
All in all, this is a disaster. Now cabinet must decide. Be assured, that however decided this is going to get uglier. Precedents could be set….
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
