Year-end bonuses, salary increases and the need to activate the parliamentary committees

Our objective is not only not to have more exploitation

of new oil and gas resources (but also] to make sure

that a meaningful part of oil and gas already discov-

ered stays below the surface.

                         UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres

World leaders recently held a virtual summit to mark the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change which aims at ‘[h]olding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’. This is in recognition of the devastating effect worldwide that climate change has caused. At the meeting, United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Gutteres, called on governments to declare a ‘state of climate emergency’. He urged developed countries to honour their commitment to contribute US$100 billion to combat climate change and to support initiatives to switch from the use of fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. Mr. Gutteres stated that such commitment is based on trust and that principles such as transparency, accountability and integrity are necessary to ensure an effective fight against climate change. 

In last week’s article, we ended our discussion on the functioning of the Guyana Integrity Commission which has had a chequered history in the past and which is currently unable to effectively discharge its mandate because of severe budgetary constraints. Drawing from the reforms initiated in Jamaica in 2018, we have advocated a unified approach to fighting corruption by having a single anti-corruption agency. This can be achieved through the merger of the roles and responsibilities of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), the State Assets Recovery Agency and the Integrity Commission; and clothing the new outfit with powers of prosecution as it relates to the recovery of stolen State assets.

In today’s article, we discuss the practice of granting year-end bonuses as a means of rewarding employees for good performance during the year and to motivate them to achieve higher levels of performance in the forthcoming year. Three related topics – the grant of salary increases, prolonged acting appointments, and the need to have professional and politically neutral Public Service – form part of the discussion. We end our discussion by urging the Authorities to activate the 14 parliamentary committees that were established last October, especially the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform.

Year-end bonuses

On 11 December 2020, the President announced a two-week tax-free year-end bonus for members of the Guyana Defence Force. A similar announcement was made two weeks earlier in respect of health care workers at the Ministry of Health. However, other categories of government workers may be equally deserving of such a bonus. For example, it was the civil servants who kept the Government intact and running during the difficult period caused by not only the political situation in the country following the 21 December 2018 no confidence vote but also the COVID-19 pandemic. It is fair to state that, had it not been for these employees, the transition from the previous Administration to the present one might have been a much more difficult and painful one.

Similarly, are our teachers, who kept the education system going despite the COVID-19, not deserving as well? One hopes that the Administration reassesses its decision in order to avoid any allegation of discriminatory practice in general, and in particular of favouring the army over all other institutions of the State.

I recall in late 1992 when the PPP/C won the elections, there were allegations that Cabinet papers were destroyed, and that the Government was finding it difficult during the transition stage. I invited Dr. Roger Luncheon, then Head of the Presidential Secretariat, to my office and handed over to him copies of all Cabinet decisions for the entire year. At that time, it was the practice for copies to be forwarded to the Auditor General. I also recall dispatching all staff from the Audit Office to Ministries, Departments and Regions countrywide to carry out an inventorisation of all State assets in the light of poor recordkeeping by the concerned agencies; and to monitor the movement of such assets amid allegations that some of them were being removed from their locations without authority.

In the private sector, the grant of the year-end bonus is an established practice to provide employees with some form of financial reward in recognition of their contributions during the year. The quantum of the bonus usually depends on financial performance of the organisation, and as far as possible all categories of workers benefit from the year-end pay-out. Individual pay-outs are normally dependent on the performance of the employees during the year, as reflected their  performance appraisals. Sometimes, departments are given block sums for achieving the targets set, and it is the management of these departments that determines the quantum of the bonus for each employee, having regard to his/her performance.  

While recognizing that governments do not exist to make profits but rather to render a service to their citizens in areas such as health, education, security and the like, it may be worth the while if they emulate some of the good practices of the private sector in relation to motivating employees to achieve higher levels of performance. One criterion for the grant of a year-end bonus could be the extent to which cost savings can be achieved without compromising on the quantity of service rendered. Indeed, it would be entirely appropriate for the Government to have in place an institutionalized arrangement for rewarding employees for their performance during the year.

Salary increases

A related issue is the grant of annual salary increases. The Government is yet to announce such increases for the year 2020. The practice over the years has been for the grant of salary increases of around five to eight percent without regard for individual performance. In such a circumstance, there is no incentive for employees to give of their best, and good performing employees are penalized at the expense of poor performers. That apart, salary increases are usually given close to the Christmas holidays retroactive to the beginning of the year, which is against the norm in the private sector. One suspects that the reason for this relates to the quantum of the increase, and by releasing the pay-out close to the holidays, there will be less of a quarrel from employees and the unions that represent them.

One suggestion is that salary increases should be a two-part one: an inflation-related increase; and a merit increase. The former is to ensure that employees are not made financially worse off. The latter, based on performance appraisals, will help to motivate employees to rise to the highest level of potential in their work environment. Decades ago, the Public Service had in place a system of merit increment, and it was possible for an employee to earn a double increment.

Towards a professional and politically neutral Public Service

Governments come, and governments go; but it is public service that provides the institutional memory to enable a smooth transition. This is why there is a need for a strong, professional, impartial and politically neutral Public Service. All appointments, transfers, promotions, disciplinary actions and retirement, from the Permanent Secretary and Regional Executive Officers to the entry-level clerks, should follow the established procedures as laid down by the Public Service Rules and Regulations. The Public Service Commission, a constitutional body, is charged with administering these rules and regulations.

It is unfortunate that some public servants have recently been relieved of their positions because their appointments were based on political considerations and not in accordance with the established procedures. This practice does not augur well for the effective functioning of the Public Service. In particular, replacing senior public officials every five years (assuming that governments change every five years) leaves a highly demoralized Public Service, and succession planning is rendered most difficult. It is fair to say that successive governments have contributed to this state of affairs. Added to this, is the extent to which persons are recruited on a contractual basis at salaries and other conditions of service superior to other employees. The 2016 Commission of Inquiry Report on the functioning of the Public Service had recommended, among others, a unified Public Service with a single pay and grade structure. Needless to mention, this recommendation is still to be implemented. 

Acting appointments

From time to time, public officials demit office for various reasons such as retirement, transfer, promotion or resignation. When this happens, they are replaced by officials who satisfy the job requirements in terms of qualifications, experience and having good record of performance, following adherence to the established recruitment procedures. Recognising that this may take some time, officers next in line are usually appointed to act in the positions until the vacancies are filled. The general principle is that an acting appointment should not exceed six months. As an example, following the retirement of the Auditor General in late 1990, I was appointed to act in the position. Around the same time, I declined an offer from the Inter-American Development Bank to be its local financial specialist because I wanted to make a contribution to improving Guyana’s financial management systems and to restoring public accountability. Within three months, I was substantively appointed to the position, retroactive to the date of my acting appointment.

The point we wish to make here is that an acting appointment should not be a prolonged one, since such a practice creates uncertainty in the mind of the concerned officer as to whether he/she would be substantively appointed. Successive governments have tended to use this practice to extract loyalty and to get the officials involved to toe the line, thereby stifling independence of thought, competence and professionalism. Fortunately, over the years, there have been a few officials have stood up against this undesirable practice and carried out their duties in accordance with their professional training and experience, and without fear of losing their jobs.

As an example of this undesirable practice, let us look at the Judiciary. Since 2005, when Madam Justice Desiree Bernard demitted the office of the Chancellor to become a Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice, there has been no substantive appointment to the position. The Chief Justice position has also been affected since the substantive holder was elevated to the position of acting Chancellor, leaving the most senior High Court Judge to act as Chief Justice. Justice Carl Singh retired as Acting Chancellor, having served in that position for 12 years during the period 2005 to 2017. Similarly, the late Justice Ian Chang served as Acting Chief Justice for ten years from 2005 to 2015 before retiring. Apart from their prolonged acting appointments, Justices Singh and Chang would have received superannuation benefits commensurate with their substantive positions, thereby being deprived of the additional benefit to which they would have been entitled had they been substantively appointed.

We urge the Authorities to end the practice of prolonged acting appointments, especially as it relates to the Judiciary which it should not be over-emphasized must not only be independent of the Executive Branch of the Government but must also be seen to be so. Given the sterling performances of Acting Chancellor Yvonne Cummings-Edwards and Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire during the period of political uncertainty following the no confidence vote in which they stood out as  a beacon of hope for justice, equality and the law, they deserve no less than substantive appointment to these positions. 

Need to activate parliamentary committees

On 14 October 2020, Parliament Office announced the appointment of members of 14 Standing Committees of the National Assembly, including two important committees, namely, the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform; and PAC. Both committees have urgent tasks ahead of them. In relation to the former, considering the events that took place since the 21 December 2018 vote of no confidence as well as the requirement for local government elections to be held next year, it is imperative for the Elections Commission to be reformed to make it a truly independent, autonomous and impartial body.

 As regards the work of the PAC, its last report was in respect of the years 2012-2014. The PAC is therefore five years in arrears in terms of examination and reporting on the public accounts. In addition, the PAC is responsible for recommending to the Assembly the names of five persons to serve on the PPC. Regrettably, the PPC has been without the services of the Chair and Vice-Chair since their tenure of office expired in October 2020. The other three members demitted office a year earlier in accordance with their terms and conditions of service.

Since the Assembly is convening on Wednesday, we urge the Authorities to activate not only the two committees referred to above but also all the other committees so that the work of the Legislature can commence urgently and in a meaningful way.