Dear Editor,
The advertisement of the Terms of Reference given to the current Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service mentions, amongst others, the massive task of ‘fixing’ salaries and benefits.
One detects that the framers of the TORs assumed that there currently exists only one package of salaries and benefits in what is loosely referred to as the Public Service.
Preferably the term ‘Public Service’ needs to be legally defined. For while the constitution identifies certain constitutional entities, the fact is that the status of some have been diminished, over the previous decade or more, into ‘Budget Agencies’ of the Public Service which were directly controlled by the executive branch of government. This organisational travesty is still in the process of being addressed.
For example, despite a separate Audit Act of 2004, establishing the Audit Office of Guyana as a constitutional agency, it was directed by the Ministry of Finance, until the opposition in the last Parliament got the situation remedied. This office has its own package of salaries and benefits, actually approved by Parliament as Regulations to the Audit Act.
The judicature enjoys similar privileges, as does the Guyana Elections Commission, as constitutional agencies. Public prosecutions, like the Ombudsman, a substantive constitutional agency, also had its status reduced, and subsequently rehabilitated, unfortunately without the separate values for positions as obtain in the judicature.
Incidentally the Guyana Revenue Authority, like the Audit Office, has its independent compensation structure. It would appear that the Guyana Defence Force enjoys a similar status even to the extent of shorter pensionable service, unlike the Guyana Police Force.
In the latter connection the GRA and the Audit Office have different (later) retirement periods than regular Public Service.
There is a superficial perception that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is Public Service, even though it is established by an Act that defines the independence of its operational and financial management systems.
Interestingly, even though the Hydrometeorological Services of the Ministry of Agriculture are essentially operated out of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, the latter administration is not mentioned as a budget agency. In the meanwhile the Teaching Service Commission has been appearing so consistently in the estimates submitted to the National Assembly, that many decision-makers overlook its constitutional status, its own compensation structure, and modus operandi.
As if the above do not reflect enough differentiations, the Public Service proper contains sufficient of these to compound the purported generalisation of ‘fixing’ salaries and benefits. The perceived traditional Public Service currently operates at least the following identifiable pay regimes:
a) Regular 14 Grade Salary Structure
b) Contracted Employees
i) Paid regular salaries and benefits in established positions
ii) Paid special contract salaries and benefits in established positions
iii) Paid special contract salaries and benefits in non-established positions
iv) Paid special contract salaries and benefits in donor-funded projects
Contracts could extend for one year or more.
The more fundamental issue however is ascertaining the true value of any job and the relative values between jobs. The current job structure values were established since the 1980s. Laziness and deliberate indifference have contributed to the substantive neglect of any effective evaluation of new jobs and competencies deriving from increasingly new technologies and systems, etc, over the past years, and more specifically this century. So that any ‘fixing’ will have to be preceded by a most comprehensive job evaluation exercise – one which is normally based on accurate job descriptions. It can be anticipated, however, that a not insignificant number of contracted employees, as well as ‘traditionals’ would not have been issued these. The prospect therefore of addressing such lapses would be formidable, particularly where the Regional Administrations are concerned.
In all this one must contemplate the position of the unions involved. Their participation in the job evaluation exercise may be worth some consideration.
What perhaps will remain a daunting challenge, even after the completion of the rationalisation of substantive public servants’ salaries and benefits, is to address the relativities in the comparator institutions of the wider Public Sector.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
