Dear Editor,
The rationale used to justify the increase in salaries for the Ministers is not only absurd, it is self-incriminating.
Doling out huge bonuses or big increases in salaries to government officials and or Ministers of the Government does not prevent thieving. Just look at the scandal that surrounds FIFA. There, top officials enjoyed great salaries and big perks and yet they still indulged in corrupt dealings.
What acts as a strong disincentive to ‘thieving’ by high government officials or anyone else for that matter is harsh penalties if caught. The APNU+AFC coalition government should focus on putting ‘checks and balances’ in place to make it difficult for government officials to get their hands on the money, not raise their own salaries. The APNU+AFC approach to administration seems to be one of ‘lowering the river’ instead of ‘raising the bridge’!
One way to minimize corruption is to put in place the recommendations made by visiting UNDP officials as it relates to corruption. First, the emphasis should be placed on the ‘prevention of corruption’ whilst at the same time ferociously engaging in the ‘prosecution of corruption’. Just focusing on the ‘prosecution of corruption’ is not the best way to go.
According to a recent NCN news report, a UNDP official recommended that two or three Conformity Officers, to be certified by UNDP, should be set up in each ministry. The role of these Conformity Officers, as I understand it, would be to monitor and evaluate the performance of programmes in the ministry. These Conformity Officers would indeed be an effective ‘dis-incentive’ to would-be corrupt officials. Maybe Minister Harmon would want to consider setting up three Conformity Officers in the Ministry of the Presidency. That would be a positive signal to Guyanese and an act of redemption.
In addition to the role of Conformity Officers, Minister Harmon would be well advised to have experts craft a Results Framework Document for each ministry. Such a framework would clearly identify the objectively measurable and verifiable indicators that are to be achieved within a given time frame. This would provide an effective framework for the evaluation of the performance of ministers of the government and other top officials.
The yet-to-be presented Code of Conduct for the Ministers would not be enough, given their natural proclivity for self-aggrandizement, as evidenced by their recent acts.
As far as I am aware, CEOs, top officials of companies and corporations as well as Ministers of Government the world over earn – the emphasis is on the word ‘earn’ – increases in salaries based on past performance. Increases in salaries are never paid out in anticipation of performance.
That leads me to the following question: Based on results, what have the Ministers of the government done to deserve such a humongous increase in salary? Have they created jobs for thousands of young people? Have they improved the educational system? Have they solved the crime situation in the country? Have they successfully achieved the top three priorities of the government? What have they done?
Before you even attempt to answer that question, ask yourself, what are the metrics used to measure the performance of our ministers? Pick any minister, let’s say the Minister of Public Security, or the Minister of State in the Office of the President, or say the Minister of Social Cohesion or the Minister of Governance.
Starting with the Minister of Governance, what metrics are being used to evaluate his performance? Is it the number of corruption cases successfully prosecuted? Is it the number of gold mines reaching their production targets? Is it the number of barrels of oil pumped? What are the metrics?
The Minister of Public Security. What metrics are being used to measure his performance? The rate of reduction of serious crime in the country? The number of murders solved? The number of nightclubs closing at 2:00 a.m.? The number of corruption cases successfully prosecuted in the courts? The number of pirates caught, the number of guns handed in? The number of speeches made? The number of photo-ops in the news? What?
What evidential criteria have been used to determine that the APNU+AFC administration is a ‘quality’ team? Minister Harmon should share that with all Guyanese. Minister Harmon should also note that he cannot be ‘judge and jury’ in his own cause. That is a basic principle of natural justice. He being a lawyer should know that.
When Minister Harmon graded his own administration’s performance within the first 100 days of its existence and assigned it an A+, he was guilty of being ‘judge and jury in his own cause’. It is the legal equivalent of “Heads I win; Tails you lose.”
It would be an interesting exercise to do an objective analysis of the managerial experience at executive level and the ‘career profiles’ of the ministers of government. Would such an analysis reveal that 90 per cent do not have formal training in management or managerial experience at the executive levels?
Minister Harmon should be encouraged to shift his focus from self-serving evaluations and keep his eye on the political barometer: the responses of the people. The APNU+AFC has very little ‘political capital’ to work with, only 5,000 units of it. Don’t squander it!
Yours faithfully,
Burt Rogers
