Last week’s article on the role of the Permanent Secretary and Regional Executive Officers (REOs) in our system of public financial management generated some positive reactions. This is understandable considering that several of these officers have been replaced by persons who possess little or no experience in relation to the functioning of the Public Service in general and our system of public financial management in particular.
The new administration may wish to consider holding a three-day workshop/seminar involving Permanent Secretaries and REOs to sensitise them on the important role they are require to play in our system of government. More specifically, sessions could be devoted to assist these officials in enhancing their knowledge and understanding of:
The constitutional requirements relating to public finance as contained in Articles 216 to 223 of the Constitution, with special emphasis on the use of the Consolidated Fund and the Contingencies Fund, supplementary estimates and the role of the Auditor General;
The detailed requirements of Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, especially in the areas dealing with budget preparation, its execution and reporting requirements;
Our accounting and financial reporting system, including the IT-based Integrated Financial Management System (IFMAS); and
The constitutional amendment relating to the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission as well as the detailed requirements of the Procurement Act of 2003.
Separate sessions could also be held with Ministers of the Government and other Members of Parliament.
Last Tuesday, the Commission of Inquiry into the functioning of the Public Service began its hearings. Some interesting revelations have so far come out of the hearings. Today’s article is devoted to a discussion of some of the matters raised before the commission.
Filling of vacancies
On the first day of the hearings, the Principal Personnel Officer (PPO) of the former Public Service Ministry revealed to the commission how under the previous administration, decisions on the filling of vacancies were made by Cabinet and handed down to the ministry for implementation. In some cases, positions were created and filled through instructions from a minister and passed on via the then Public Service Minister. The PPO went on to state that the Public Service Commission (PSC) was a “disappointment” and felt that greater care should be exercised in the selection of the commissioners. He asserted that some ministers had limited knowledge of their areas of responsibility and that training should be extended to them. The PPS also considered that political appointments led to Permanent Secretaries being less equipped to follow rules and regulations.
In the past, neither Cabinet nor any minister was involved in the filling of vacancies in the Public Service. When new positions were created, Permanent Secretaries were required to provide the necessary justifications to the then Public Service Ministry. It was an elaborate and lengthy procedure, requiring several rounds of exchange of correspondence and discussions. This was necessary because of the long-term implications involved. Once the necessary approval was granted, the inventory of authorised staffing in the Public Service was updated. A similar procedure was followed in relation to the abolition of posts. The updated staff inventory was then forwarded to the PSC for the filling of vacancies.
The PSC is an independent constitutional agency charged with the responsibility of making appointments to public offices and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices. This is provided for under Article 201(1) of the Constitution. Article 200 provides for the President to appoint a six-member Commission, three of whom through meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Two members are to be nominated by the National Assembly after it has consulted such bodies as appear to it to represent public officers or classes of public officers. The remaining member is appointed by the President acting in accordance with his own deliberate judgment. The current members, who were appointed on 1 September 2014, are: Mr Carvil Duncan (Chairperson) Mr Cecil Seepersaud (Deputy Chairperson), Mr Patrick Yarde, Mr Mohamed Akeel, Ms Patricia Went and Ms Vidyawattie Looknauth.
One hopes that Cabinet and ministerial invention in the creation of positions and in the filling of vacancies are occurrences of the past which should never be repeated. The PSC needs to take serious note of the statement by the PPO who was merely echoing the views of so many stakeholders on the lack of effective functioning of this important constitutional body responsible for ensuring the highest degree of fairness, equity and transparency in the appointment of public officers, free of political interference. The PSC must turn a new leaf and vigorously challenge any attempt to usurp or to undermine its role. It must do so fearlessly and not succumb to political and other pressures to compromise on its rules and procedures.
The Public Service Appellate Tribunal
One of our greatest disappointments is the failure of the previous administration to have a functioning Public Service Appellate Tribunal (PSAT) in place to attend to the public servants’ grievances which were not satisfactorily addressed at the level of the PSC. Article 215 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of the PSAT, comprising a chairperson and at least two other persons, appointed by the President. The chairperson is required to be a person who: (a) holds or has held the office of a Judge of the Court of Appeal; or is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Court of Appeal and hold or has held the office of a Judge of the High Court. It is the responsibility of the Tribunal to adjudicate on appeals in relation to any decision by the PSC, the Teaching Service Commission, the Police Service Commission or the Commissioner of Police.
One of the startling revelations made at the Commission of Inquiry was that that public servants had no recourse when the actions of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries were in breach of the Public Service rules. Regrettably, since 1995, no Tribunal has been in place because of the failure of the previous administration to appoint a new Tribunal when the life of the previous Tribunal came to an end. As a result, over the years public servants, who felt that they were unfairly treated, had no recourse of appeal against the decisions of the PSC. The only alternative was to seek the intervention of the courts. However, because of the cost involved, aggrieved public servants, with a heavy heart, resigned themselves to their fate. The continued failure to have a fully functioning Appeals Tribunal in place is indeed an act of cruelty perpetrated on public servants!
Scholarship awards
It has long been suspected that there was a significant degree of political interference in the award of government scholarships. The Manager of the Scholarship Department of the Ministry revealed at the Commission of Inquiry that the former Public Service Minister was personally involved in selecting students for scholarship awards and training programmes. She also stated that some selected individuals did not meet the criteria for the awards but the government would make representations for them to the donor agency.
The Manager explained that her department advertised for the award of scholarships. Once the applications were received, they were processed and the information presented to the then Minister in a spreadsheet. The Minister then made the selection. The Manager indicated that in the past assessments of applicants were carried out by an external panel who would interview and shortlist candidates. However, this practice was discontinued. The Manager is of the view that the previous practice of external assessments by a panel for scholarship awards should be re-introduced since there were better outcomes compared with the present system. This is what she was reported to have said:
“Years ago it worked; we had better outcomes. We had better persons coming out because we knew that they really wanted to do what they applied to do. Now, we have young persons going with the flow, they just apply because it is a nice programme but they’re not too sure that that is what they really want to do. At the interviewing level, we will be able to get from the person if they actually want to study what they are applying to study and I think it will make more sense…”
I was as a member of the interviewing panel in the late 1980s and I recall interviewing a young graduate of Queen’s College who had won the Guyana scholarship award. He had just successfully completed level I of the ACCA during the six-month period while awaiting the ‘A’ Level results. I indicated to him that in my view, he should proceed to the UK and continue with ACCA studies but the young man was adamant that he wanted to study economics. I then told him that if he insisted on wanting to study economics, we would have no alternative than to send him to the University of Guyana. The young man baulked at the suggestion of not pursuing overseas studies. Having agreed to continue his accounting studies, albeit reluctantly, he was sent to the University of Lancaster where he completed his ACCA in two years. Approval was given for him to pursue the Master’s degree during his third year of the scholarship award. Upon successful completion, the young man returned to Guyana and was made Deputy Auditor General. He subsequently received another award to pursue his PhD which he successfully completed while being attached to the Audit Office, and was promoted to Senior Deputy Auditor General. That young man’s name is Ashni Singh!
