With the change in administration following the May 11, 2015 national and regional elections, several Perma-nent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers (REOs) have either been replaced or have resigned because they were candidates for the opposition political party. This unfortunate state of affairs should have never happened since these officials were required to provide the institutional memory and knowledge to aid the transition from the previous administration to the present one. However, for over a decade ago, the previous administration abandoned the principle of neutrality of the Public Service and opted for appointments based on political considerations and party loyalty, rather than on the basis of technical and professional competence, and meritocracy. In the circumstances, in the same way that ministers are replaced when a government changes, so will it be for all those who have been appointed based on their political affiliation.
Today, we are paying the price of setting aside this fundamental principle in public management that the British left us on the attainment of Independence. Both India and Pakistan, many parts of Africa and indeed our Caribbean neighbours that have embraced the Westminster system of government, continue the practice inherited from the British with remarkable success.
The practice of employing persons in the Public Service based on political affiliation and party loyalty only serves to undermine the effective functioning of one of the key institutions of the state without which no government can survive. This practice must therefore come to a speedy end. We must reinstate the Public Service to its former glory. We need to have a unified Public Service, not the traditional one staffed with Public Service Commission appointees, and a parallel one staffed by elitist political appointees and party loyalists at significantly higher compensation packages. The former was badly neglected, indeed sidelined, in preference to the latter comprising contracted employees who in most cases did not have the requisite knowledge, skills and training to effectively discharge their duties. Suffice it to state that governments will always come and governments will always go, but a unified and truly professional Public Service dedicated to the service of whichever government in place, remains intact.
What we are witnessing today happened in 1992. It is déjà vu all over. The political opposition is screaming discrimination but lest we forget, it did exactly the same 23 years ago. There are therefore no moral grounds for complaining. At the same time, regardless of how difficult it is for the new administration, it must try its best to avoid embracing the practices of the past as they relate to appointments in the Public Service, and to remove any perception that this is being done. The failure to do so will result in a perpetuation of this vicious cycle that only serves to undermine and destroy this all important institution. The Public Service is the institutional mechanism that enables the government of the day to execute its policies as articulated in its election manifesto. As such, its functioning must not be tampered with for political expediency.
It is good that the government has decided to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, under the able chairmanship of Prof Harold Lutchman, with a view to providing appropriate recommendations for a reformed Public Service. Ms Joyce Sinclair, as outstanding public servant of yesteryear, would have been a great choice as a member of the Commission. Notwithstanding this, one hopes that the Commission with invite her to present her views on how the Public Service needs to be reformed. The idea of a Civil Service Training Institute should also be enthusiastically embraced since it will provide the service with employees who are highly trained in public service matters. In three months’ time, the Commission’s report will be out. Hopefully, it will be made public, and the government will immediately embark on the task of implementing the agreed recommendations. Time is of essence, and if this is not too optimistic, the reform initiatives should begin with effect from January 2016.
The role of the Permanent Secretary/ REO
A Permanent Secretary or an REO is the chief administrative officer of the ministry, department or region. He/she manages the day-to-day operations and provides important advice to the Minister or Regional Chairman. With quiet competence, he/she carries out the instructions of the Minister or Regional Chairman to the extent that they do not violate the applicable laws, rules, regulations or circular instructions.
I recall in late 1987 or early 1988, the late President Desmond Hoyte held a retreat with Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department at the Ogle Management Training Centre. One of the issues raised relates to instances where ministers were issuing instructions that violated applicable laws, rules, regulations and circular instructions. Mr Hoyte was visibly upset upon hearing this. He immediately provided guidance on how to deal with such a situation and instructed the then Secretary to the Treasury, Mr H O S Thompson, to leave the meeting to draft a circular, and to return with the draft for finalization and issue. Like a typical headmaster, Mr Hoyte, with a pen in his hand, went through the draft circular word by word and made appropriate changes. The circular was issued before the retreat ended, the gist of which, if my memory serves me right, is as follows:
- If a Minister gives an inappropriate instruction, it is the duty of the Permanent Secretary or the REO to formally discuss the matter with the Minister;
- If the Minister insists that the instruction be carried out, the Permanent Secretary/REO must set out his/her concern in writing, copied to the Secretary to the Treasury and the Auditor General; and
- If there is a further insistence on the part of the Minister, the Permanent Secretary/REO must inform the President in writing, copied to the subject Minister.
Permanent Secretaries and REOs are the heads of budget agencies. They have enormous responsibilities in relation to budget preparation, budget execution, and accounting and financial reporting, as outlined in in the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act. They must follow strictly the requirements of the Public Procurement Act, especially as they relate to tendering for the procurement of goods and services and the execution of works to ensure the highest degree of transparency and accountability. They are also required to present themselves to the Public Accounts Commission (PAC), when requested to do so, to explain any shortcomings or discrepancies in the financial management of the ministry, department or region for which they have specific responsibility, as identified by the Auditor General.
Section 9 of the FMA Act provides for the appointment and responsibilities of the Finance Secretary who is also a Permanent Secretary. He/she is responsible for, among others, issuing financial circulars in relation to: (a) procedures to implement the Act and its Regulations; (b) procedures to enhance transparency and accountability for the use of public moneys; and (c) ensuring the provisions of the Act, the regulations and the financial circulars are complied with. The Finance Secretary, along with the Accountant General and the Auditor General, is an advisor to the PAC.
In accordance with Section 11 of the Act, Permanent Secretaries and REOs, who are also heads of budget agencies, are required to manage the affairs of the ministry/department/region in a manner that promotes the proper use of the public resources assigned to the budget agency. In particular, they are responsible for:
(a) Implementing appropriate processes and procedures to prevent the incidence of fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of public moneys;
(b) Maintaining an effective internal audit capability;
(c) Pursuing the collection of any moneys owing to the budget agency;
(d) Coordinating the preparation of the budget submission to the Ministry of Finance;
(e) Maintaining the financial management system for the budget agency;
(f) Operating bank accounts approved by the Minister of Finance;
(g) Ensuring the security of and accounting for all cash and other financial assets held by the budget agency;
(h) Maintaining financial accounts and registers as required by the Minister, the Regulations, the Financial Circulars or the management of the budget agency; and
(i) Providing the finance secretary with any information that is requested concerning the affairs of the budget agency;
Section 21 of the Act provides for all budget agency receipts to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund and no expenditure can be incurred except by way of an appropriation. This section also refers to a “conditional appropriation” which provides for the budget agency to spend a specified amount of money, conditional upon the budget agency earning at least the equivalent amount which must be collected and paid over to the Consolidated Fund. The budget agency can only spend a conditional appropriation based on a written agreement with the Minister prior to the presentation of the Estimates in the National assembly, specifying, among others, the source of earnings, and the amount expected to be collected in the fiscal year.
It is important to note that no contract or other arrangement for the payment of public moneys shall be entered into unless there is sufficient unencumbered available in the appropriation to make the payment. In addition, as provided for by Section 43, all appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year, and all unspent balances must be returned to the Consolidated Fund.
In accordance with Sections 48-49, a Minister or official shall not in any manner misuse, misapply, or improperly dispose of public moneys. If a loss of public moneys should occur and, at the time of that loss, a Minister or official has caused or contributed to that loss through misconduct or through deliberate or serious disregard of reasonable standards of care, that Minister or official shall be personally liable to the government for the amount of the loss.
Finally, Section 85 provides for penalties in relation to; (a) falsification of any account, statement, receipt or other record kept for the purpose of the FMA Act, the Regulations, the finance circulars or any other instrument made under the Act; (b) conspiracy or collusion with any other person to defraud the State or make opportunity for any person to defraud the state; or (c) knowingly permitting any other person to contravene any provision of the Act. The penalties extend not only to an official but also a Minister. If found guilty of an indictable offence, the official or the concerned Minister is liable on conviction to a fine of $2 million and to imprisonment of three years.
