On October 21st, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs penned an extraordinary letter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Jermaine Figueira declaring that he would be unable to provide a clerk for the PAC meetings scheduled for today and October 25th as the clerk of that committee had developed health issues because of high stress and could not continue to provide service to that committee and all other clerks were unwilling to provide service because of the “unprofessional conduct of some members of this Committee, which is not conducive to a healthy working environment”.
Extraordinary.
First, it must be acknowledged that counselling in general and on mental health in particular has been ignored by employers. Those workers afflicted are usually in fear of seeking counselling lest it be used against them in preferment consideration or they become targets of jibes from fellow employees. The continuing onslaught of COVID-19 and its deepening impact on mental health has also not been adequately addressed in workplaces. One presumes that the committee clerks have had access to appropriate counselling whenever they needed it and the Clerk of the Assembly should ensure that the PAC clerk is provided with counselling and other help to overcome the difficulties being experienced.
The PAC is one of the most important committees of Parliament and its work has already been severely backlogged by the skirmishing between the major parties since December 2018, the five-month delay in the declaration of results last year and the political theatre this year. It remains marooned on the Auditor General’s Report for the year 2016. The last thing it needs is any further delay in its business considering that the 2020 Auditor General’s Report on the public accounts of Guyana will be tabled shortly upon the reconvening of Parliament following its recess.
There is no doubt that the PAC has been the locus of sharp confrontations particularly during the bid to have its former chairman David Patterson step down. The suddenness, however, with which clerking is unavailable to the PAC is disconcerting and would raise questions of Mr Isaacs’ own supervising of parliamentary staff. Surely, Mr Isaacs should have been aware earlier of the problems being experienced by the PAC clerk and intervened to relieve the clerk’s stress. The unwillingness of other clerks to serve the PAC over the alleged “…unprofessional conduct of some members of this committee” is more baffling. When did these clerks become aware of this conduct? Had they sat in on these PAC meetings? Was it word of mouth? More importantly, when did Mr Isaacs become aware of this supposed unprofessional conduct by PAC members which was affecting clerks of the committees and what did he do about it? Just declaring out of the blue that a clerk could not be provided for scheduled meetings of the PAC is unacceptable and reflective of poor management. Mr Isaacs himself should have provided clerking duties to the PAC until a replacement was found particularly as he should have been aware of the conditions that led to the present situation.
In accordance with the manner that parliament’s Standing Orders are structured, it would be the Chair of the PAC, Mr Figueira who would be responsible for maintaining order and discipline. He told Stabroek News that he was shocked at Mr Isaacs’ missive and said that he did not believe there had been any unprofessional conduct by members of the committee. Why didn’t Mr Isaacs discuss this with Mr Figueira before dispatching his officious letter? Has Mr Isaacs drawn this problem to the attention of the Speaker of the House and suggested a solution? Has a report on the alleged misbehaviour of the PAC members been made to the Committee of Privileges?
The PAC is a critical subset of Parliament and both of the major parties represented on it must take responsibility for the parlous state it finds itself in. However, nothing must stand in the way of the financial business of the country being superintended and the accounting officers of the ministries, agencies and departments being held accountable for the raft of missteps that continue to be made. The PAC is currently bogged down in the 2016 Auditor General’s report. Given the new challenges that have arisen it is unlikely that it can get up to date quickly with its consideration of the Auditor General’s reports. Yet, that is even more important at this juncture considering the rapid expansion of the oil and gas sector and incidents like that disclosed on Friday where GWI has instituted a lawsuit against a delinquent contractor who received $123m – almost full payment for works in Bel Air – while only completing 11% of the task. That matter should be comprehensively reflected in the 2020 report and addressed in the coming weeks rather than three years hence.
In those circumstances, it was perfectly understandable that Mr Figueira was seeking twice weekly meetings to speed up the deliberations of the PAC. This has been objected to by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, Gail Teixeira who has tabled a motion for the rescinding of the decision for twice weekly meetings. On October 20, all of the PPP/C members on the PAC subscribed to a statement in which they said “Furthermore, it must noted that the PAC is supported in its work by the presence of statutory and constitutional representatives, the Financial Secretary, the Auditor General and the Accountant General. All of whom carry out hectic and critical posts in the executing of their mandates as well as the management of the government on a day-to-day basis. To have these key officers sit for 2 full days a week in the PAC means that the work of the government will be stymied”.
It is not for the PPP/C PAC members to speak on behalf of the constitutionally independent Auditor General’s Office or even the Accountant General’s Department. The latter two would be acutely aware of the pivotal role of the PAC in ensuring that the highest prudential standards are maintained and it would be their responsibility to ensure that adequate provision is made for attendance at the behest of the PAC. Furthermore, those ministers on the PAC who believe that they are too busy to attend to its business twice per week should seek leave of the House to be replaced.
There should be no more histrionics. The public grows wearier by the day of the incessant nonsense that has creeped into all parts of public life – in this case a vital committee of Parliament. One expects that there will be immediate steps taken to resolve the existing problems so that PAC meetings can be reconvened immediately. Mr Figueira should also now move to ensure agreement at the level of the PAC on immediate treatment of the 2020 report while arrangements are made to address the backlog.
