Last week, we discussed the salary increases for public servants which we felt did not appear unreasonable, considering that public servants had received a 10% across-the-board increase with effect from 1 July 2015. This means that employees earning below $99,000 would have received a 21% increase since the new Administration took up office. In addition, the minimum wage was increased from $39,950 to $50,000 per month, and a tax-free one-off bonus of $50,000 was granted late last year for employees earning below $500,000 per month. These increases must be viewed in the context of the economy having slowed down considerably because of a clamp-down on drug trafficking and money laundering through the passing of certain amendments to the anti-money laundering legislation, among other actions taken.
We, however, bemoaned the fact that during the period 2013 to 2016, the number of contracted employees have increased by 60%. We had criticized the previous Administration for operating with a parallel public service comprising hand-picked persons, only to witness a continuation of this undesirable practice. An experienced human resources management practitioner pointed out that the table in the article included teachers and police who are not part of the Public Service. While this is true, our intention was not to restrict our analysis to the Public Service but rather to highlight the extent to which contracted employees were reflected in the National Estimates. Unlike 2012, we found it difficult to disaggregate from estimates for the Ministries of Education and Public Security the number of teachers and police for the purpose of arriving at a figure for the Public Service. We nevertheless did some adjustments and arrived at an estimated 27% of the number of contracted employees in the Public Service in 2016, compared with 20% in 2012. The analysis was therefore not about “the author’s eagerness to emphasise the thrust of his criticism” since if this were so, the inclusion of teachers and police would have had a diluting or somewhat opposite effect. As regards the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation being considered a budget agency prior to 2016, this anomaly was pointed out on several occasions in the Auditor General’s report to Parliament dating back to 2003 and earlier years, as well as through this column.
The Auditor General is reported to have stated that the Ministry of Finance’s claim that the sole source method was used in the selection of auditors to conduct the forensic audits was incorrect since at least one dozen auditors were used to conduct the exercise. Sole sourcing implies that one person or firm was selected. It would have been more appropriate to consider that the selective tendering approach, provided for under Section 26 of the Procurement Act, was adopted whereby interested auditors or auditing firms were contacted and requested to submit their proposals. The contracts were awarded based on their capacity to undertake the audits. While the Minister of Finance might have erred in considering that the sole source method was used, it is somewhat disingenuous for the Auditor General to criticize the arrangement. One recalls the Minister contacting the Auditor General who made it clear that his office lacked capacity to undertake these audits. This matter was discussed in detail in a previous article dated 22 June 2015 entitled “Forensic audits, the Procurement Act and the Audit Office”. The Auditor General must also be keenly aware of the extent of legal services contracted in the public sector without going to tender. As an example, the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd. (NICIL) had expended some $74 million on such services during the period 2002 to 2014, without any comment in his report on NICIL for those years.
Today, we begin our examination of the findings and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Public Service. The COI concluded its work and presented its report to the President on 13 May 2016, and the report was laid in the National Assembly on 24 May 2016. We will first consider Chapter 1 – Antecedents and Characteristics.
Enactment and promulgation of a Public Service Law
The COI referred to the Burgess-Hunn Commission of 1966 which had recommended that the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Ministry should function under a Public Service law to provide for “a well-structured and capable Public Service Ministry which clearly defined the functions of a Public Service Ministry as the Premier ministry responsible for public management and administration. The Act was to define the status and duties of the Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Ministry with powers, duties and responsibilities for the effective organization of departmental and ministerial machinery of Government, and human resource management, outside the constitutional remit of the Public Service Commission”. The COI also noted that the Collins Commission of 1969 supported the enactment of a Public Service Act.
The COI’s finding is that a Public Service Act is a common instrument in search of an effective public management and public administration in CARICOM countries. It noted that such legislation is in place in Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Jamaica, Belize, and the Cayman Islands, and, further afield, in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Accordingly, the COI recommended the enactment and promulgation of a Public Service Law, with related Regulations, which could promote the effective management and administration of the Public Service and insulate it from irregular and undesirable influences, thereby enhancing its status and productive capacity. It also recommended that urgent action be taken to enact a Code, along the lines proposed by Government.
Whistleblower protection
Referring to the announcement of the Government’s intention to introduce whistleblowers’ protection legislation to combat corruption and other acts of wrongdoing in both the public and private sectors, the COI recommended that the Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower) Bill 2015 be enacted and promulgated as a matter of urgency. It also recommended that “public support in the form of appropriate programmes of public education be prominently part of these two measures”. The Government has since held its first round of consultations on the Witness Protection Bill 2016 and the Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower) Bill 2016.
Public Service Commission
The COI pointed to the concerns raised about the portrayal of the Public Service Commission (PSC) as an agency that is ill-equipped to discharge its responsibilities. It believes that given its independent constitutional status, the PSC should be preserved and protected as is the case of other Commonwealth countries. The COI has made it clear that it is imperative for the appointment of members of the PSC to be based on merit. In this regard, it has recommended that “the PSC should at all times be constituted with suitably qualified and competent persons of unquestioned integrity who would strive to be fair and impartial in the execution of their duty in consonance with the constitutional prescription that they exercise independent judgement and not be influenced by political and other external or extraneous considerations”.
The COI emphasized the importance of dialogue and agreement on procedures in resolving and settling differences and referred to the practice in Jamaica where there is a high degree of collaboration with the Jamaica Civil Service Association. It therefore recommended that a careful study of the Jamaican approach be undertake with a view to “determining its relevance and likely contribution to improving relationships between the PSC and the GPSU in Guyana”.
Recruitment and selection in the Public Service
The COI concurred with the views of many of those who have given testimonies, that Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers, whose duties and responsibilities are comparable, should be appointed by the PSC, instead of the President and the Minister of Communities as is currently the practice. In this way there will be a more integrated Public Service and greater synergies with the Administrative Regions. Accordingly, the COI recommended the following:
(a) The PSC be reconstituted with suitably qualified and competent persons of high integrity to exercise their duties in strict fairness, impartiality, and on the basis of merit. It is desirable, as in the case of the Public Service Appellate Tribunal, that members of the Commission should possess experience and show capacity in matters relating to administration, human resource management or public affairs;
(b) The Constitution and other applicable laws be appropriately amended to empower the PSC to appoint Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers;
(c) All appointments to the Public Service positions be by open internal and external competitions to obtain the best from the labour market; and
(d) All appointments by the PSC be on the basis of merit and be free from political influences, and meet the essential qualifications and requirements for the jobs to be performed.
As regards the recruitment of support staff for the Judiciary, such as the staff of the Deeds Registry, the COI expressed the view that the employing authority should be the Judicial Service Commission since it is more appropriately placed to select suitably qualified staff, given its own independent identity. Accordingly, the COI has recommended that the Judicial Service Commission, like all other Service Commissions, be empowered to make appointments to positions of support staff to the Judiciary and to exercise disciplinary control over such staff.
Next week, we will continue our discussion on the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service, beginning with Chapter 2: Contract employment in the Public Service.
